Time to settle, Mr AG

WE CALL on the government to settle, as a matter of priority, the continuing grouse of state attorneys for better salaries. Theirs is not a case of unjustifiable demands; the government, in fact, has long accepted the need to upgrade the remuneration packages of these professional officers and, based on its own promises, the dispute should certainly have been settled by now. We are anxious to see this matter resolved not only because we believe the state attorneys should be better paid but also because there is a need for these departments, particularly that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to be able to attract quality legal talent to represent the State.

Also, it is time for state attorneys to stop their unseemly demonstrations which are seriously affecting the operations of the country’s courts. Within the last three months, the attorneys went twice on sickout action to protest the government’s failure to resolve the money issue. We believe they have made their case, that their action has won them the sympathy of the profession and the general public and they have succeeded in exacting from the government a commitment to “press their proposals forward with dispatch.” Having so forcefully aired their grievance, we expected that the state attorneys would give the government some breathing space to fulfil its promise.

Over the last two days, however, they took protest action again, absenting themselves from the courts and causing cases in the Assizes, magistrates’ courts and even the Court of Appeal to be adjourned. While they may be upset over government’s apparent delay in meeting their demands, the state attorneys are also professionals who must carry a responsibility to the administration of justice and the expeditious process of our courts. That they should now set upon a campaign to hold the country’s judicial process to ransom, to upset the course of litigation of innocent parties, is, we believe carrying their protest too far. We hope that good sense will prevail and the attorneys would pursue their disruptive protest no further.

On the other hand, the government must appreciate the urgency of rectifying this long-running anomaly. It has led to a critical depletion of the legal staff of key departments and it is time for the State to turn this situation around. The record of departures tells the story: Between 2001 and 2003, ten officers quit the Solicitor General’s Department; 13 departed from the Chief State Solicitor’s Department; 14 resigned from the DPP’s Office and four left the Chief Parliamentary Counsel’s Department. Since there is no basic contention in this matter, it seems inconceivable to us that there has been no meeting of the minds, and that the issue could have provoked such a serious confrontation.

Attorney General John Jeremie, who is new to the job, may have been somewhat naive in blaming the bureaucracy for the delay in settling with the state attorneys. He opened himself to the reply that bureaucracy is only an obstacle when you want it to be an obstacle. As evidence, the angry state attorneys cited the case of the Attorney General’s Media Adviser who was given a monthly package of $27,500 on a contract that was fast tracked. By contrast, a junior State Attorney, a trained professional, collects a basic salary of $6,500 and a travelling allowance of $1,700. A Senior State Counsel gets a total package of $16,000, which includes transport and other allowances. Mr Jeremie, we believe the long-suffering state attorneys deserve to be on the fast track too.