Driven more by an observation of real-life situations than by academic research, it is pretty much accepted that most men have three sides to themselves. The public life, the private life, and the secret life. And there is, of course, the intermingling of all sides. The public life is the easy one to assess. It could be the words openly expressed by the politician from the podium, more suited to the desires of the robotic listener than expressed by the inner convictions of the speaker. The private life is mainly a man’s domestic side — the chatter exchanged with his family over dinner, the renovation to the house, the family’s health and education issues, and the passions exchanged at nights. The secret life is often where tragedy stalks and a derailment (or ‘enhancement’)of his public and domestic sides is threatened. He may be a successful businessman to many, but in secret he is a lord of the criminal underworld. He may be ‘happily married’ to the public but in secret he desires little boys or men, or he may be an out-of-control promiscuous rascal bringing pain to the family on the domestic front. In public he may be worth $25 million, but when offshore accounts are added up his real worth may be $250 million. In all of last week, as the story of Owen Ellington’s sudden retirement from the post of commissioner of police swirled in the media, and especially among members of the public, in our need to see the powerful ‘cut down to size’, coupled with our history in which healthy cynicism is too often a signpost to reality, we were not prepared to believe the reasons given by Mr Ellington for his sudden departure. Indeed, at some stage even Mr Ellington, who ought to have known us, must have been asking himself if the reasons, or variations of it, could hold up in the court of public opinion. Most of the stories e-mailed to me by many were speculations about his ‘secret side’, his ‘sordid side’, and yet, no one could provide me with any evidence to support the speculations, although the many ‘follow-ups’ were promised. Even I came dangerously close to believing the stories which dominated conversations at street level, especially as the political directorate seemed not to have much interest in bringing clarity to the situation. Why would National Security Minister Peter Bunting sit idly by and witness the name of easily the most competent commissioner that this country has ever introduced into the very top of national security matters being dragged through the mud, and not intervene? At which stage did the minister confirm in his mind that he needed to get involved? Was the minister’s involvement necessary, in terms of the country’s image on the international landscape, or was the minister smelling out something much closer to home? I spent a few days of last week speaking to a number of individuals who occupy positions within striking distance of the halls of power in this country. Mr Ellington has a lawyer and I have deliberately not made contact with either Mr Ellington or his lawyer. I didn’t want any ‘off the record’ story from them. It has been my experience over many years of writing newspaper columns in Jamaica (since 1993) that whenever a big story is considered ‘locked’, the only journalist who will ever unravel it is a foreign one with a white skin shade. Jamaica is probably too small and too dangerous for the cadre of local journalists to ferret out anything, plus, we tend to open up more to those who resemble the haunting ghosts of our painful past. The Public Defender’s Report and Ellington It is my understanding that immediately after Mr Earl Wittter, who was then public defender, issued his stinging report into matters associated with the Tivoli Gardens security forces incursion, multiple civilian deaths there and the death of Keith Clarke in Kirkland Heights, the commissioner wanted to depart his post. To the best of my knowledge, as the weeks unfolded in the wake of the Tivoli tragedy and violent criminality began to trend down, the political directorate, and especially Minister Bunting, saw only political gain in Ellington staying on and encouraged him to do so. Minister Bunting is personally wealthy, highly endorsed by the ladies across the social landscape of this country in the vein of the late PNP icon Michael Manley and the JLP’s Hugh Shearer, and Bunting wants to become PNP president just as much as many, including me, have been endorsing Energy Minister Phillip Paulwell. It is also my understanding that the PNP Cabinet’s MIB (Most Important Boring minister), Anthony Hylton, has his eyes on the presidential post in the PNP. As the Public Defender’s Report was issued and was totally unread by many who called themselves journalists, it is also my understanding that as Ellington considered quitting the top post, one of his main considerations was upsetting the morale of the second-tier leadership of the JCF and rank-and-file cops. In other words, how does he meet the objectives of his personal and private side and not upset the country’s national security issues? It pained him. I was told that one of the main reasons given by Ellington in his letter informing of his decision to go is that he was deeply concerned that reports on extra-judicial killings, especially in the Clarendon scenario, were making his position as commissioner untenable. One ex-minister of government said to me, “Ellington was very much aware of the history of the JCF and its relationship with poor, inner-city residents. He knew and expressed it to me in many late-night meetings that if he could not make a difference there, he would consider himself a failure.” He then went on to explain to me that the commissioner was very far from the old-style commissioners where the political directorate called the shots. “To the best of my knowledge, and I don’t want you to quote me, when then Prime Minister Golding recommended Ellington for the post of commissioner, he (the PM) told him that he had six months to bring about a reverse in violent criminality. If I was a fly on the wall, and you can quote me, I would imagine that Golding would have said to him, ‘If you fail, I also fail. You have six months’.” Stung by Witter’s report and feeling that he needed to remove himself, he was asked to stay on by a PNP Administration which saw political goodness in him, although Ellington was appointed during the time of a JLP Administration. That in itself, at least to outsiders, indicated that political maturity had dawned on us. But was that the reality of what was taking place? Did the UK and US support interception of Jamaicans’ telephone conversations? Surely Mr Ellington must know that is why many of us have poured cold water on the exact reasons given for his sudden retirement. Saying that he needs to remove himself prior to the pending Commission of Enquiry into the Tivoli killings makes sense only to a point. That the individual who had command responsibility for the army, Major General Stewart Saunders, has been employed in the governmental administrative machinery gives a lie to that. Why has Minister Bunting not seen the anomaly in that and come out swinging in support of Ellington? Raw PNP politics! Was there some disquiet when the US/UK funders of major areas in the JCF were involved in wholesale electronic interceptions of conversations and the commissioner requested and maybe even demanded names instead of this wholesale listening in to conversations between Jamaicans? It is my understanding that the commissioner took umbrage to it and received no support from the security minister. Surely he had to have been aware of the Special Intelligence Unit (SIU) and ‘Spy’ Jimmy McGregor’s time there when he was appointed by then Commissioner Francis Forbes? Let us make the assumption that Mr Ellington is seated at his desk one day and he has been made aware by his security minister that main overseas funders of the JCF are spying on us, are listening in on our conversations. Does he say, ‘Yes minister, let them go ahead,’ or as a trained policeman say, ‘I need a list of possible suspects to give the final approval’. Where does Mr Ellington’s responsibility lie? With the funders or with the citizens of Jamaica? Certainly, if the commissioner had been given the names of 10, 20, 30 people suspected to be involved in criminal activities, there is an operational protocol to be applied. Does he just roll over and allow the foreigners to take over? It is public knowledge that Jamaica is owned by the IMF and the main funders of the IMF, the USA. One would have thought that these funders would have said to the security minister, ‘We have problems with you guys. You need to deal with it now or we will turn off the spigot.’ Did the US threaten to take away the visa of the security minister? If the US funders were that concerned with extrajudicial killings in Jamaica and they wanted to invoke the Leahay Act as they tried in St Lucia and the St Lucian PM supported the commissioner, we are not fools in this country not to know that who pays the piper calls the tune. The Leahay Act simply states that as long as the US funds an overseas security entity, if the entity does not live up to the dictates of the funders, the funding will be locked off. My problem with the whole matter is, it appears that the US, operating under the Act, applied pressure on Bunting and he, knowing that he is seeking a bigger future in the PNP and not wanting to make himself look bad, simply deflected it to Commissioner Ellington in the way power is distributed. Ellington became the fall guy. Did the US representatives in Jamaica call Bunting and Ellington to a meeting, or were the meetings separate? What were the discussions about? The biggest problem facing the commissioner is that he is bound by the Official Secrets Act, and even where he wants to bring clarity to his situation, he has to keep his mouth shut. While the US has emasculated Jamaica in the region and, unlike in St Lucia where Kenny Anthony stood up in support of his commissioner, in Jamaica the politicians have handed Ellington to the dogs and they have done so because that is the way power is distributed. Mr Ellington has easily been the brightest and best that we have ever produced in the top spot in the police force. Because of the press of narrow political gain, he has been ditched and dumped. Married with children at university age, where does he go now? Which entity in the Caribbean would be prepared to employ him? To give a perfect example of how the great US ‘loves’ us, it is my understanding that at one stage where organised criminality reared its ugly head in Jamaica and the JCF had guns but were running out of ammunition, the US refused us the importation of ammunition. Now, I can hear the screams. Why should they allow us? I know that extrajudicial killings have been a deep concern and, over the years, I have written about it with much pain and passion. But the commissioner who has been most concerned and has invoked the biggest culture change in the JCF in an effort to reverse it (it will not happen overnight as the culture shifts) has been given to the dogs by his political bosses. If you were the head of a large organisation and you did overseas business and you needed a competent CEO, would you, after this, employ Ellington? Probably not. The US would likely tell you who best to employ. And provide you with a name.
Posted on: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:13:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015