The Public Services Commission has cited the Data Protection Act as its reason for declining to provide details of the salary arrangements in place for the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Claudette Thompson, and her immediate predecessor, Paula Llewellyn.
Nationwide News submitted an access to information request seeking clarification on how much is being paid in salaries and benefits to the two senior prosecutors since Paula Llewellyn stepped aside.
But the request has been met with a wall of silence.
Chevon Campbell has more in this report.
Since the Constitutional Court struck down the extension of Paula Llewellyn’s tenure in office, the country has had an Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Claudette Thompson.
The Public Service Commission appointed Thompson to act after Llewellyn indicated she would step aside from performing the functions of the office following the court’s ruling.
The ruling has been appealed and the government is awaiting a ruling.
Opposition Leader Mark Golding and the PNP’s legal team have maintained that in their view, the Constitutional Court’s ruling means the office of DPP is vacant.
The Attorney General has a different view.
But the Public Service Commission has not fully clarified its understanding of Paula Llewellyn’s status as chief prosecutor.
Nor has it explained its reasoning for making an acting appointment.
It’s not clear, for example, whether Miss Llewellyn remains in office and is on a leave of absence, or whether she has demitted the office completely.
It’s also not clear whether she’s still receiving her full salary or not.
Since 2017, the basic salary of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been linked to that of a sitting puisne judge.
Since April 1 this year, that sum has been close to $20 million.
It’s also not clear how much of that sum, if any, Miss Thompson is being paid to act.
Nationwide News sought answers from the Services Commission.
Our news centre also sought clarity on what basis Claudette Thompson was appointed to act as DPP, and the specific reasons given by Paula Llewellyn as to why she was stepping aside and for how long.
But in a written response to our news centre, Human Resource Information and Development Officer at the Commission, Jacqueline Bell Rowe, denied the request for information.
According to Mrs. Rowe, the Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure of the arrangements in place regarding the payment of salaries and benefits to both Miss Llewellyn and Miss Thompson.
She specifically cited the second schedule of the Act.
That section bars the revealing of data processed for the purposes of considering a person’s suitability for judicial office.
The Commission is also relying on a section of the Act which bars the disclosure of data relied on for management forecasting, especially where that disclosure would be likely to prejudice any other activity.
The Commission has not clarified what activities it believes would be prejudiced by revealing if, and how much, Paula Llewellyn was being paid while she remained out office, and how much her replacement is being paid.
It’s not the first time the Data Protection Act has been used to block public access to information of national importance.
The Act was cited recently when the Tax Administration of Jamaica declined media queries regarding the owners of properties it had spent millions to lease, but had yet to occupy.
The Office of the Information Commissioner has stressed that the Data Protection Act cannot be used to frustrate transparency.
The Act establishes the Information Commissioner as the country’s data and information regulator.
Credit: Source link