Executive Director of Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) Mickel Jackson is calling for the appointment of a permanent Director of Public Prosecutions following the recent court ruling by the Constitutional Court that the second tenure granted to Paula Llewellyn is unconstitutional.

“We have a court ruling that has made a declaration that the law as it was stands and therefore no stay of execution could be granted. You can’t have the Government going to Court to say you know what, I have a challenge with the Judgement here and therefore I want the current or the former DPP Ms Llewelyn to stay in office. The stay of execution is very clear. While that could perhaps be argued in the Constitutional Court and things may very well change, we believe that the judgment ought to be respected as it is,”  declared Jackson .

The imbroglio involving Paula Llewellyn has taken on a new dimension, with the Government particticularly The Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck and the Attorney General Derrick McKoy insisting that Llewellyn can continue in her capacity as DPP and vociferously getting behind her cause. Llewellyn has engaged the legal services of esteemed attorney Douglas Leys to see to it that she is reinstated.

Yesterday Leys was reported to have commented: “I can say affirmatively that she has not resigned, and it would not be advisable for her to resign her position until the Court of Appeal has finally determined the issues.” 

The Constitutional Court recently ruled that the Government’s amendment of the Constitution to grant a second extension to Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, with the option to remain in office up to the age of 70 years, was unconstitutional.

Following the court ruling, the DPP has indicated that she is unable to carry out her role in office and an acting DPP has been appointed as the Government seeks to challenge the Constitutional Court’s ruling in the Court of Appeal.

Jackson of the JFJ  is calling for the Public Services Commission to intercede and see to it that a  permanent DPP is  appointed.

“Last year we called for the former DPP to step down in the interest of that office not being marred and to protect her own legacy with the greatest of respect to her. This year we are reiterating the call. The reason for this being a concern for us, the acting DPP which we believe there needed to be one to ensure the administration of justice continues, however, the acting DPP should have  solely been appointed with a vacant office because as it stands now there are some questions that we need to answer: is the former DPP getting paid just the same? what exactly is her status when you look at the judgment? With all of that in mind we believe that a permanent DPP ought to be appointed,” Jackson said.

She also raised concerns about how section 96(3) of the Constitution was utilised for the appointment of an acting DPP.

“In our estimation, this section was not to be utilised in a way that is basically saying that if there is an adverse court ruling, I will be appointing a DPP but the former one is there somewhere that we don’t know of. We believe that again is circumventing the rule of law and undermining the court judgment as it was passed and that is another concern so with that in mind we believe that a DPP ought to be appointed permanently,”  shared Jackson.

Many are asking why is it the Paula Llewellyn situation is a hill that the Government  is prepared to die on given the mounting controversies it is already embroiled in and would it not be better for Paula Llewellyn to quietly go into the night having already secured one extension.  She has ben in the job for 16 years now, surely there are others within the DPP’s office who could ably succeed her? Why be a burden to the Government? Why not exit with grace and dignity?  How can a top legal officer be so trenchant in refuting the Constitution of the land in order to secure personal gain?