KINGSTON, Jamaica, CMC – The Jamaica government Wednesday said it remains confident that the lawsuit filed by two executive members of the main opposition People’s National Party (PNP) challenging the amendment to the Constitution allowing for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Paula Llewellyn to remain in office for an extra two years, will not succeed.
The PNP members want the Supreme Court to declare the amendment, which moves the retirement age of the DPP and the Auditor General from 60 to 65 years, as unconstitutional, null, and void.
But, Minister without Portfolio in the Office of the Prime Minister with Responsibility for Information, Robert Morgan, told the weekly Cabinet news conference that he wanted to show the sentiments of the Minister of Justice this morning that the government acted within the law and constitutionally.
“There is no question about the legal process that the government put forward. What is clear to the government is that the opposition is carrying out a personal vendetta against an individual.
“They had filed a claim about one individual when the law was changed to affect two individuals. The public needs to ask themselves why they target this person. They have not provided any evidence of impropriety; they have not provided any evidence of inappropriateness of behavior,” Morgan told reporters.
“Everyone in the legal fraternity, or at least most of them, who have appraised this individual’s work has spoken about the transformative approach that this person has had.”
He said the DPP had been involved in several “major groundbreaking trials which have caused many criminals to be now behind bars.
“So we are a bit interested in hearing what the Court has to say, and we respect the Court, but we do not believe based on the frivolous grounds on which this claim was laid …will be successful,” Morgan added.
The claimants, Member of Parliament Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting, are seeking a declaration that Llewellyn should be allowed to remain in office until September, when the three-year extension she was given in 2020 expires.
They are seeking declarations that Section 2 of the Constitution (Amendment of sections 96(1) and 121(1) Act 2023 was enacted for an improper purpose and is therefore inconsistent with the Constitution, null and void.
A declaration is being sought that Section 2 of the Act would circumvent, undermine, and contradict the constitutionally mandated process for the extension of the term of office of a DPP and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Constitution, null and void. The claimants seek a declaration that Section 2 of the Act was enacted in breach of the separation of powers principle and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Constitution, null and void.
In the alternative or furtherance to the declarations or consequent to the grant of the words, the claimants are seeking an order that section 2(1) of the Act be read and construed as not applying to a person who is the DPP as at the date of commencement of the Act and that section 2 ( 2) be struck out.
and then 