The lead attorney for DPP Paula Lewellyn, Douglas Leys, has warned the Court of Appeal that upholding the Constitutional Court’s ruling striking down the extension of her tenure in office would interfere with her pension and the terms and conditions of her service as Chief Prosecutor.
The former Solicitor General made the argument on day two of the appeal hearing underway in downtown Kingston.
Mahiri Stewart has more.
King’s Counsel Leys says the Constitutional Court did not just get the case wrong as a matter of constitutional law.
He argued that their ruling would also adversely affect Paula Llewellyn’s right to her pension as a public official.
It is on that ground he urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the April ruling of the lower court.
According to Leys, both the DPP and the Auditor General are creatures of the Constitution.
He noted that when Parliament repealed the 1947 Pensions Act and replaced it with a new act in 2007, it extended the retirement age for public officials to 65 years old.
The new law also allowed public officials to opt for early retirement at 60 years old.
However, Leys told the Court of Appeal that because the DPP and the Auditor General are created by the Constitution, an ordinary piece of legislation could not govern their early retirement.
He therefore argued that section two of the constitutional amendment, which was struck down, was the only provision allowing the DPP to opt for early retirement at any point before she reached the age of 65 years old.
According to Leys, the provision was necessary because in repealing the 1947 Pensions Act, Parliament removed a pre-existing right of the holder of the office of DPP.
The King’s Counsel argued it therefore became necessary for the Parliament to restore that pre-existing right by way of a constitutional amendment.
He says otherwise, the DPP would have no choice but to remain in office until the age of 65, regardless of the circumstances.
Leys told the three judge panel that without section two of the amendment being upheld as valid, it would mean the Parliament would have extended the age of retirement of a sitting DPP, and altered the terms and conditions of her service by removing a pre-existing right.
Leys told the Court that the Constitution forbids that kind of interference with the constitutionally protected office of the DPP.
He submitted that the only remedy available to Parliament was to enact the very section of the law which the Constitutional Court has struck down.
The King’s Counsel told the court he could not understand how the three lower court judges missed what he described as such a crucial point in the case.
He described the alleged oversight by the Constitutional Court as mystifying.
He urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling and restore the full terms and conditions of Paula Llewellyn’s tenure as DPP.
Paula Llewelyn is appearing as an intervener in the high stakes appeal.
The government is represented by Allan Wood and Ransford Braham, while the PNP is represented by Michael Hylton.
Leys, who’s supported by Samoi Campbell, will continue making his submissions at 9:30 on Wednesday morning.
Credit: Source link