AFRA RAYMOND
The Attorney General’s decision to halt implementation of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act was announced on June 22. Strong objections to that delay were recorded from the Joint Consultative Council (JCC), the Office of Procurement Regulation and myself.
The AG said he was unwilling to proceed, on the basis of the concerns submitted by the Judiciary on May 25, in response to his April 12 request for comments on the implementation of this important new law.
I issued Freedom of Information requests to the Ministry of the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs (AGLA) on June 27, and on September 22 to the Judiciary.
The AGLA’s response was unhelpful and bewildering, swerving between silence on the AG’s letter, a comical refusal to disclose the Judiciary’s response, since they were “not the author,” and providing an extract from Hansard which I did not request.
The Judiciary never responded substantively until October 5, in a sobering release, which gave me serious cause for pause; hence my delay in resuming this interrogation.
Earlier I raised the prospect of a constitutional imbroglio, in that the implementation of this important new law was being delayed by the expressed concerns of the Judiciary.
I took the view that the limited comments disclosed by the AG went beyond administrative matters, into expressing a view on the law itself, which meant that the will of our Parliament was being frustrated by our Judiciary’s concerns.
The Judiciary press release
The AG described the Judiciary’s comments as “traffic-stopping,” and I could not agree more.
“...As this was correspondence between the Office of the Chief Justice and the Honourable Attorney General, the Judiciary did not think it appropriate to share the correspondence. Neither did the Honourable Attorney General...”
Imagine that, after the AG gave an undertaking to Parliament to disclose the correspondence during the proposed consultations.
“...The Judiciary is of the view that correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Attorney General should not be the subject of an FOI request under the act. There should be a system where certain things are classified and may be declassified after a period of time.
“The Judiciary wishes to make it clear that it is not averse to sharing its comments on this issue publicly but not under the ambit of an FOI request. Allowing such an FOI request is a dangerous precedent that the Judiciary believes should not be set...”
Of course such correspondence is subject to the FoI Act, so this was a most disturbing admission from the Judiciary.
The next sentence was stunning:“...The Judiciary with the approval of the Attorney General, who requested the information and was the recipient of the correspondence, has decided on this occasion to publish its comments…”
The Judiciary is confirming that it had the approval of the AG to publish.
Well, I tell you.
[caption id="attachment_914358" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Afra Raymond -[/caption]
The Judic
