The Editor, Sir:

The announcement of an out-of-court settlement, to the dispute between the four members of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the prime minister was an anticlimax. This settlement aborted the judicial resolution to this constitutional contention. The constitutional propriety of the prime minister's action in directing the governor general to terminate their services as members of the PSC before the completion of the time prescribed by the Constitution was challenged by four members of the PSC. They rejected the prime minister's charge of "misconduct", which he had proffered as his justification for having their services terminated.

Out-of-court settlement

The following was attributed to the prime minister: "Prime Minister Bruce Golding has said, in an out-of-court settlement with four of the five sacked members of the PSC, that his recommendation to sack them was not intended to suggest they were involved in any acts of dishonesty, corruption or personal misbehaviour." Assuming the foregoing is accurate, then on what legal basis were the services if those PSC members terminated?

Irreconcilable differences

Irreconcilable differences between the PSC and the prime minister are not grounds for termination countenanced by the constitution. If any member is uncomfortable with the prime minister, that member is free to resign. On the other hand, if the prime minister is dissatisfied with any member, he has no legal ground to have their service terminated, except by those conditions stipulated in the Constitution.

I beg to differ from those who hail the settlement as being the best thing for the national interest. While an embarrassment might have been averted by the settlement, the aborting of the judicial process has left the door wide open for this or a future prime minister to repeat the error. The practice of private deals to settle constitutional issues must not be encouraged.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

1 Tankerville Avenue

Kingston 6