We appreciate that neither Prime Minister Bruce Golding nor the members of the Public Service Commission (PSC), whom he caused to be fired a year ago, might have had the stomach, at this time, for an intense legal battle.

In Mr Golding's case, Jamaica is facing a potentially deep economic crisis that will demand much attention from the administration. A court fight could not only be distracting, but also undermining of the efforts to forge a consensus.

Daisy Coke, Mike Fennell, Edwin Jones and Pauline Findlay, who sought vindication from Mr Golding's accusation that they misbehaved in public office, perhaps genuinely believed that they acted in the national interest by agreeing that the case should not go forward once the prime minister withdrew the allegation.

Logic of the development

But even as we understand the logic of the development, two immediately obvious issues arise, the first relating to the statement issued by the parties regarding the terms of the settlement.

According to the statement, Mr Golding clarified that his action when the PSC members were fired was not to suggest that the group had engaged in acts of "dishonest, corruption or personal misbehaviour".

However, in asking the governor general to dismiss the group, Mr Golding specifically cited their misbehaviour, for which the Constitution allows for the revocation of appointment to the PSC. An obvious question, given the wording of the Jamaica House statement, is whether a distinction is now being drawn between "personal misbehaviour", of which the PM says he never intended to accuse the members, and misbehaviour of a collective kind, on which there is no comment.

But the more fundamental development from the compromise, in our view, would be the postponed, though not entirely lost, opportunity to test whether Mr Golding acted within the bounds of natural justice and constraints of constitutional government.

It is to be recalled that the prime minister acted when the PSC refused to acquiesce to his demand to rescind its appointment of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as solicitor general. Indeed, section 126 (2) of the constitution suggests that it was within the right of the PSC to go ahead with the appointment, the PM's objection notwithstanding.

Moreover, this case would have further served to clarify the law with regard to natural justice and constitutional protection of certain public officials in the face of two recent rulings by the Privy Council on the subject.

In the first of the recent judgments, the law lords, in May, ruled in favour of Horace Fraser, who served as a magistrate in St Lucia but was dismissed on the recommendation of the island's Judicial Services Commission without the commission applying its own code of disciplinary proceedings. The St Lucian authorities argued that the executive could so act because the dismissal was within the bounds of Fraser's contract. The Privy Council, though, found that the provisions within Fraser's contract fell within the constitutional protection of rights.

In the second case, from St Kitts and Nevis, Angela Innis was fired as solicitor of the High Court without reference to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission; the executive again claiming that its action was within the terms of a contract. The Privy Council, however, held that the executive acted outside of its bounds and that Innis was entitled to constitutional remedy.

The specifics of those cases are not all congruent with Jamaica's, but the broad principles are sufficient to draw parallels.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.