REFRESHMENTS Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Fanta Orange ...
affidavit further2 - coke daisy
-
Upload
coolbreeze45 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of affidavit further2 - coke daisy
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
1/6
SECOND 1AFFIDAVIT OF DAISY COKEIn response to Affidavits of
Orrett Bruce Golding and Dorothy Lightbourne
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
CLAIM NO.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMAICA
BETWEEN DAISYCOKE
1ST
CLAIMANT
AND MICHAEL FENNELL 2 ND CLAIMANT
AND EDWIN JONES 3 RD CLAIMANT
AND PAULINE FINDLAY 4 TH CLAIMANT
ANDORRETT
BRUCE GOLDING
1ST
DEFENDANT
ANDATTORNEY
GENERAL OFJAMAICA
2ND
DEFENDANT
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
2/6
I, DAISY COKE , being duly sworn make oath and say as follows:-
(1) I reside at 13 Glenalmond Drive, Kingston 8 in the parish of Saint Andrew and I
am a Consulting Actuary.
I have read the affidavit of the First Respondent sworn to on the 12 th March 2008
and the Second Respondent sworn to on the 11 th March 2008 and I respond as follows:-
(2) My response to paragraph 3 of the Affidavit of Dorothy Lightbourne is that Prof.Stephen Vasciannie was contracted by the Ministry of Justice on the 2 nd April 2003 and
assigned to the Attorney Generals Chambers as Director of the International Affairs
Division. This was the same basis upon which the previous Director of the Division was
retained. As of 1 st April 2005 Prof. Stephen Vasciannie occupied a supernumerary post as
Deputy Solicitor General until the expiry of his contract on the 2 nd April 2008.
(3) With regard to paragraph 4 and 19 of the Fist Respondents affidavit and
paragraph 4 of the Second Respondents affidavit, I recall that the Second Respondent
called me shortly before the interviews of the candidates for the post of Solicitor General.
She asked that I advise her who the candidates were. I so advised her and assured her that
the Commission would not recommend someone with whom she could not work. This
comment was made in the context that three qualified persons had applied for the post of
Solicitor General and that I felt certain that the interviewing process would yield an
excellent candidate eminently qualified to work with the Attorney General. At no time
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
3/6
during that conversation or at any time before or after did the Second Respondent request
that she or the First Respondent be consulted before the Public Service Commission
made its recommendation nor did I give any such assurance or undertaking. In fact, I
became aware of the allegation that I gave such an undertaking or assurance when I read
the affidavits of the First and Second Respondents in this suit.
(4) Further as I understood the role and function of the Public Service Commission to
be that of an independent constitutional commission charged with the responsibilities of
recruiting and recommending appointments and promotions for the Public Service, Iwould not have given the Second Respondent any assurance which could amount to the
political directorate pre-approving or vetoing any candidate prior to the interview
process.
(5) Shortly after the interviews of the candidates but before the meeting of the Public
Service Commission on the 18 th October 2007 the Second Respondent contacted me to
voice her objection to the proposed recommendation of Prof. Stephen Vasciannie to the
post of Solicitor General on the grounds set out in paragraph 13 of my affidavit of 14 th
January 2008. I recall that the Second Respondent made the remarks set out in paragraph
5(i) of her Affidavit to which I responded that it was my understanding that the Solicitor
Generals Department operated as a team and that excellent litigation skills were
available to the Department in the person of Patrick Foster Q.C. and advised her in detail
of the selection process as set out in paragraph 14 of my aforementioned affidavit.
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
4/6
(6) At the request of the other members of the Commission as set out in paragraph 16
of my Affidavit, I met with the Second Respondent on the 24 th October 2007. I had
previously requested of the Chief Personnel Officer to provide her with copies of each
candidates application, and at that meeting I provided her with a copy of the
advertisement for the post of Solicitor General, the selection process document and the
sample Interview Score Sheet. The Second Respondent then expressed the view that Mr.
John Leiba was a chambers lawyer and thus unable to properly determine the suitability
of a candidate for a post which required in her view, litigation skills. I responded that Mr.
Leiba was invited to participate in the selection process in his capacity as the President of the Jamaican Bar Association and thus the Commission felt sure that the views of the Bar
would be represented through him. At no time during this meeting did the Second
Respondent express concern that the interviewing panel ought not to include third parties
or that John Leiba ought to have been excluded as he was the law partner of the 4 th
Claimant.
(7) At no time during my meeting of the 24 th October 2007 with the Second
Respondent did I say or do anything to indicate that the Commission would be prepared
to reconsider Douglas Leys for the post of Solicitor General. The Commission had
undertaken a careful and considered selection process which ranked Douglas Leys as the
least suitable candidate and in the circumstances I indicated that the Commission had no
basis to re-advertise the post or to recommend Douglas Leys as the preferred candidate.
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
5/6
(8) At the meeting of 31 st October 2007 between the Claimants and the First
Respondent, the First Respondent made no mention of the so called assurance or
undertaking given by me that he and the Attorney General would be consulted before the
Commission proceeded with a recommendation to the post of Solicitor General nor did
the First Respondent make any mention of the fact that he considered our actions in
making the recommendation of Prof. Stephen Vasciannie to amount to misbehaviour as
set out in paragraph 6 of his affidavit.
(9) Further at no time during the meeting of 31st
October 2007 did I advise the FirstRespondent as stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit that I would have the Governor
General send back the recommendation of Professor Stephen Vasciannie for the post of
Solicitor General. The meeting ended when the First Respondent departed for another
appointment after the utterances set out in paragraph 22 of my affidavit.
(10) The contents of paragraph 8 of the First Respondents affidavit are therefore
strongly denied, and I reiterate that the former Commissioners were first informed of the
First Respondents pronouncement of their misbehaviour upon receipt of the revocation
of their appointments by the Governor General on the 13 th December 2007, and learnt of
the details of the allegations of misbehaviour by way of excerpts of the First
Respondents letter to the Leader of the Opposition and her Affidavit obtained out of the
Supreme Court as set out in paragraph 31 of my Affidavit.
-
8/14/2019 affidavit further2 - coke daisy
6/6
(11) In the circumstances, I remain firmly of the view that the Commission discharged
its duties in respect of the recruitment and recommendation of a candidate to be
appointed Solicitor General in accordance with the law and that there was no
misbehaviour on its part in so doing and that the First Respondents decision to
recommend the removal of the Applicants for misbehaviour ought to be quashed upon the
grounds set out in the Fixed Date Claim Form filed herein.
SWORN to at )in the parish of ) ____________________________ this day of 2008 ) DAISY COKE
before me: )
............................................................JUSTICE OF THE PEACE for the Parish of:
Filed by DunnCox , Attorneys-at-Law for and on behalf of the Claimants herein whose address for service is 48Duke Street, Kingston, telephone: 922-1500, Fax: 922-9002