Jamaica’s democracy faces some clear dangers which remain contemporary. Thought and industry leaders in the society (in academia, civil society groups, the church, and the private sector) who choose to ignore these risks become complicit to whatever costs the country incurs from such risks. Even in circumstances in which such costs arise from cowardism (fear), there is no abating of the complicity of those who have a duty to speak and act in the best interests of the country. In this two-part series, I will examine two sets of risks. The first set deals with the apparent control which members of the private sector and influential members of the Cabinet have over the Prime Minister. The second set deals with the constitutional reform process and the attendant questions and unresolved issues. These will be addressed in Part 2. There is a relationship between the two sets of issues, as I will show.
In this two-part series, I will examine two sets of risks. The first set deals with the apparent control which members of the private sector and influential members of the Cabinet have over the Prime Minister. The second set deals with the constitutional reform process and the attendant questions and unresolved issues.
Is Prime Minister Holness under the control of others?
While leaders have a responsibility to listen, and while a Prime Minister must take advice from aides and experts and be responsive to reasonable arguments and proposals, there is a vast difference between responsive listening, by a Prime Minister – a country’s chief executive, and being under the control and influence of others. There are seven pieces of evidence which have led me to conclude that Prime Minister Andrew Holness is not fully in-charge of the Government of Jamaica but is being directed and controlled by others. If this assessment, which relies on a body of evidence is correct, the situation spells danger for our democracy and requires action by well-thinking Jamaicans. Such action includes asking questions. This body of evidence is not new, but an analysis of the facts, shows a clear pattern and a definitive picture emerges.
- Delegating removal of members of Cabinet – The Cases of Andrew Wheatley and Everald Warmington
- Confession of pressure from, and submission to, special interests
Changes to Disaster Risk Management Act (DRMA) Orders to allow politicians to move about
- Abandoned cabinet reshuffles 2023 and 2024
- Amendments to the constitution to keep Paula Llewelyn as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
- Bold first one hundred days promise not implemented
- Uncertified for successive years and the “illicit six”.
- Delegating removal from Cabinet
The cases of Andrew Wheatley and Everald Warmington form the framework of the case of a Prime Minister under the control of others and a Prime Minister not really in charge of his government. It will be recalled that when the corruption at Petrojam had reached its zenith and it became evident that the then Minister of Energy had to step down, it was not the Prime Minister who led in this matter. Rather, the Prime Minister delegated the responsibility to members of his cabinet to “negotiate” with Wheatley his “stepping down”.
Why could not, and why did not, the Prime Minister handle the matter himself? Where has it ever occurred that a Prime Minister asks other members of his cabinet to “see if they can get a minister to step down”. Cabinet Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, who has the authority to hire, re-assign, and fire without consultation or explanation.
A similar, though not identical thing happened with Warmington. Warmington has for years been the face of uncouthness, bellicosity, boorishness and disrespect. Yet he was never publicly (and perhaps not privately) reprimanded by Prime Minister Holness. Earlier in 2024, Warmington resigned / was fired from the Cabinet. In a strange twist of facts, Warmington claimed he was fired but the Prime Minister had posted on his Instagram page a resignation letter purportedly written by Warmington. The letter was taken down a few hours after being posted.
The confusion around Warmington’s separation, especially with the Prime Minister posting and then removing a letter of resignation, is clear evidence that the Prime Minister did not want it to be said that he fired Warmington. We must ask why? But what is telling, Warmington’s claim that the Prime Minister was not acting on his own volition, but rather at the behest of civil society.
The confusion around Warmington’s separation, especially with the Prime Minister posting and then removing a letter of resignation, is clear evidence that the Prime Minister did not want it to be said that he fired Warmington. We must ask why? But what is telling, Warmington’s claim that the Prime Minister was not acting on his own volition, but rather at the behest of civil society.
The facts of these two cases form the first footing of my argument that the Prime Minister is not in charge of his government.
- Confession of pressure from, and submission to, special interests
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was much debate and public angst over restrictions. Both businesses and members of the public had an interest in the matter. At a press briefing in September 2021, the Prime Minister conceded that he had eased restrictions because of pressure from “special interests” who had “disappeared” on him “when things got out of control”.
That the Prime Minister basically came to the public lamenting his misfortunes having surrendered to special interests, shows he was not ultimately in charge, but rather that his office was being used as a tool by others to pursue their interests.
That the Prime Minister basically came to the public lamenting his misfortunes having surrendered to special interests, shows he was not ultimately in charge, but rather that his office was being used as a tool by others to pursue their interests.
- Changes to DRMA Orders to allow free movement of politicians
When the first set of Orders under the Disaster Risk Management Act (DRMA) were introduced, “no movement days” applied to politicians who were not deemed to be “essential service” members. On one such “no movement” day, the aforementioned Everald Warmington, was accosted by the police at a location where he was not involved in any form of work. In response, Warmington used a string of expletives to resist the officers and made a call to the Minister of National Security, protesting the officers’ actions and threatening that he “will not accept this …” (expletives).
The (then) Commissioner of Police promised to investigate the matter of Warmington’s visible disrespect to the police, but three years later not a word has been heard.
The (then) Commissioner of Police promised to investigate the matter of Warmington’s visible disrespect to the police, but three years later not a word has been heard.
But that is not all. The DRMA was subsequently amended to allow politicians to move about freely on “no movement” days and do anything they wish. Thus, when Minister Floyd Green and his friends were seen at a party, at a hotel, having fun and giving a “toast” to “no movement” day, he was not breaking the law. The law was amended to allow members of the political class move about freely on “no movement” days and do whatever they wished. How coincidental is it that the law was amended after Warmington “f-bombed” the police?
- Abandoned cabinet reshuffles
In May 2023, following the massive 200+% increase which the government gave itself, there were indications that there would be a major cabinet reshuffle. After a press conference, whose start was delayed for over an hour, and at which the Prime Minister rambled for over an hour, in a speech which was incoherent and directionless, the anticipated cabinet reshuffle was not announced.
What the Prime Minister announced was perhaps the clue to what was happening. He announced that he had instructed the government not to apply the increase to the Prime Minister, but also that he had appealed to his cabinet members not to take the increase, but they refused to accede to his wishes. Both sets of facts (the non-reshuffle and the refusal not to take the massive increase) show that the Prime Minister is unable to exercise the legal powers to decide who stays in and who goes from his cabinet, but also lacks the moral authority to inspire the members of the cabinet to rise to a higher level of leadership and service.
A similar situation played out a year later in April 2024. There was talk in many circles that following the governing party’s poor showing in the Local Government Elections, the Prime Minister would be making major changes to the cabinet. That has not happened. The question is: Are there persons of whom the Prime Minister is afraid and if so, whom and why? In short, is the Prime Minister compromised? A compromised Prime Minister is major governance and national security risk.
A similar situation played out a year later in April 2024. There was talk in many circles that following the governing party’s poor showing in the Local Government Elections, the Prime Minister would be making major changes to the cabinet. That has not happened. The question is: Are there persons of whom the Prime Minister is afraid and if so, whom and why? In short, is the Prime Minister compromised? A compromised Prime Minister is major governance and national security risk.
The question of whether the Prime Minister is compromised is further strengthened when one recalls a solemn undertaking given by the Prime Minister when he sought to defend the massive salary increase to politicians. The Prime Minister promised increased accountability through job descriptions with specific deliverables. These he had promised to effect within the first 100 days of his 2016 administration, and would be issued to all cabinet ministers. To date this has not been done, despite consultations on the matter.
- Amendment to the constitution to keep Paula Llewelyn as DPP
The facts in this case show that the Prime Minister declined the 2023 request from Ms. Llewelyn for a second extension. Despite the Prime Minister’s refusal, Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck moves to amend the constitution, tabling, debating, and passing the amendment in a single day in the Lower House. The Prime Minister took no part in the debate. This highly important matter raises the question of whether Minister Chuck directs and controls the Prime Minister.
First 100 days
In addition to job descriptions for cabinet ministers, Prime Minister Holness, while campaigning in 2015/16, promised that he would introduce legislation for term limits, impeachment, and fixed election dates, among other things, in his first 100 days in office. Holness has been in office for an unbroken period of over eight (8) years, and not a word has been said about those promises. In addition, the Constitutional Affairs Committee has not mentioned any of those things in its report. Is this a case of the Prime Minister having no regard for his solemn undertakings or is it that there are pressures inside his cabinet and perhaps elsewhere steering him away from those commitments?
- Uncertified for successive years and the “illicit” six
The Prime Minister’s integrity declarations must, by law, be certified and when certified, gazetted. For two consecutive years the Prime Minister is unable to receive certification and there is a strong probability that he will not receive certification for a third year unless he can get the outstanding certification. I have spoken with senior members of the private sector, who held senior positions in the leadership of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica who all agree that this situation is untenable.
In addition, there are six lawmakers who are under investigation for illicit enrichment. Despite calls for the Prime Minister to take steps to identify these lawmakers and remove them from their assignments, the Prime Minister has refused. The Prime Minister has also refused to say whether he is under investigation.
The non-certification, which means the Prime Minister is unable to explain his wealth, plus the investigation into six lawmakers for illicit enrichment, raise the question of whether the Prime Minister is the subject of kompromat (as I wrote in an earlier piece) See article here: https://leadershipreimagination.com/uncategorized/is-prime-minister-holness-compromised/. The probability of kompromat arises from the inability to explain wealth, on the one hand, and the refusal to expose the six, on the other.
Conclusion
These seven pieces of evidence are damning. They show that the Prime Minister is unable to exercise authority over, and enforce discipline in, the cabinet. The question then arises: Is the Prime Minister a puppet, and if so who are the puppet masters, and what dangers does this portend?
These seven pieces of evidence are damning. They show that the Prime Minister is unable to exercise authority over, and enforce discipline in, the cabinet. The question then arises: Is the Prime Minister a puppet, and if so who are the puppet masters, and what dangers does this portend?
Canute Thompson is Professor of Educational Policy, Planning and Leadership at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, a social activist, and author of eight books and eighteen journal articles.
His academic achievements include:
- Two Principal’s Awards in 2023 for research activity generating the most funds, and research activity with the most development impacts, serving as Project Director for a project executed by the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning.
- A 2022 Bronze place winner in the Independent Publisher Book Awards for his book, Education and Development: Policy Imperatives for Jamaica and the Caribbean.
- A 2021 finalist in The Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence for all-round excellent performance in Outstanding Teaching, Outstanding Research Accomplishments, Outstanding Service to the University Community, Outstanding Public Service.
- A 2021 Principal’s Award for Most Outstanding Researcher.
- Two Principal’s Awards in 2020 for Most Outstanding Researcher and Best Publication for his book, Reimagining Educational Leadership in the Caribbean.
Prof. Thompson,
You have put forward some salient points as it relates to risks to Jamaica’s democracy, as well as the costs to being complicit.
Your advocacy continues to highlight the need that all Jamaicans need to be involved, while not ignoring these risks in becoming complicit.
Thanks for sharing, and for your continued and invaluable efforts in pursuing matters you are passionate about, and on which all Jamaicans should be aware.
Best wishes.
Indeed Prof. Very good analysis of our current situation as a country as it relates to democracy. This article is a call to action. The Andrew Holness-led government has been constantly eroding democratic principles. The issue of cowards must be attributed to the government’s discrete approach in curtailing freedom of expression and challenging even the laws of the land. You have highlighted a few here. I do agree though that as a society we need to step up to the plate and protect what remains of democracy.
Thanks for engaging Amorkard.
Thanks for engaging Amorkard.