SECOND 1AFFIDAVIT OF DAISY COKE

In response to Affidavits of
Orrett Bruce Golding and Dorothy Lightbourne

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CLAIM NO.

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMAICA

BETWEEN DAISY
COKE

1ST
CLAIMANT

AND MICHAEL FENNELL 2ND CLAIMANT

AND EDWIN JONES 3RD CLAIMANT

AND PAULINE FINDLAY 4TH CLAIMANT

AND
ORRETT
BRUCE GOLDING

1ST
DEFENDANT

AND
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF
JAMAICA
2ND
DEFENDANT
I, DAISY COKE, being duly sworn make oath and say as follows:-

(1) I reside at 13 Glenalmond Drive, Kingston 8 in the parish of Saint Andrew and I

am a Consulting Actuary.

I have read the affidavit of the First Respondent sworn to on the 12 th March 2008

and the Second Respondent sworn to on the 11th March 2008 and I respond as follows:-

(2) My response to paragraph 3 of the Affidavit of Dorothy Lightbourne is that Prof.

Stephen Vasciannie was contracted by the Ministry of Justice on the 2nd April 2003 and

assigned to the Attorney General’s Chambers as Director of the International Affairs

Division. This was the same basis upon which the previous Director of the Division was

retained. As of 1st April 2005 Prof. Stephen Vasciannie occupied a supernumerary post as

Deputy Solicitor General until the expiry of his contract on the 2nd April 2008.

(3) With regard to paragraph 4 and 19 of the Fist Respondent’s affidavit and

paragraph 4 of the Second Respondent’s affidavit, I recall that the Second Respondent

called me shortly before the interviews of the candidates for the post of Solicitor General.

She asked that I advise her who the candidates were. I so advised her and assured her that

the Commission would not recommend someone with whom she could not work. This

comment was made in the context that three qualified persons had applied for the post of

Solicitor General and that I felt certain that the interviewing process would yield an

excellent candidate eminently qualified to work with the Attorney General. At no time
during that conversation or at any time before or after did the Second Respondent request

that she or the First Respondent be consulted before the Public Service Commission

made its recommendation nor did I give any such assurance or undertaking. In fact, I

became aware of the allegation that I gave such an undertaking or assurance when I read

the affidavits of the First and Second Respondents in this suit.

(4) Further as I understood the role and function of the Public Service Commission to

be that of an independent constitutional commission charged with the responsibilities of

recruiting and recommending appointments and promotions for the Public Service, I

would not have given the Second Respondent any assurance which could amount to the

political directorate pre-approving or vetoing any candidate prior to the interview

process.

(5) Shortly after the interviews of the candidates but before the meeting of the Public

Service Commission on the 18th October 2007 the Second Respondent contacted me to

voice her objection to the proposed recommendation of Prof. Stephen Vasciannie to the

post of Solicitor General on the grounds set out in paragraph 13 of my affidavit of 14 th

January 2008. I recall that the Second Respondent made the remarks set out in paragraph

5(i) of her Affidavit to which I responded that it was my understanding that the Solicitor

General’s Department operated as a team and that excellent litigation skills were

available to the Department in the person of Patrick Foster Q.C. and advised her in detail

of the selection process as set out in paragraph 14 of my aforementioned affidavit.

(6) At the request of the other members of the Commission as set out in paragraph 16

of my Affidavit, I met with the Second Respondent on the 24th October 2007. I had

previously requested of the Chief Personnel Officer to provide her with copies of each

candidate’s application, and at that meeting I provided her with a copy of the

advertisement for the post of Solicitor General, the selection process document and the

sample Interview Score Sheet. The Second Respondent then expressed the view that Mr.

John Leiba was a chambers lawyer and thus unable to properly determine the suitability

of a candidate for a post which required in her view, litigation skills. I responded that Mr.

Leiba was invited to participate in the selection process in his capacity as the President of

the Jamaican Bar Association and thus the Commission felt sure that the views of the Bar

would be represented through him. At no time during this meeting did the Second

Respondent express concern that the interviewing panel ought not to include third parties

or that John Leiba ought to have been excluded as he was the law partner of the 4th

Claimant.

(7) At no time during my meeting of the 24th October 2007 with the Second

Respondent did I say or do anything to indicate that the Commission would be prepared

to reconsider Douglas Leys for the post of Solicitor General. The Commission had

undertaken a careful and considered selection process which ranked Douglas Leys as the

least suitable candidate and in the circumstances I indicated that the Commission had no

basis to re-advertise the post or to recommend Douglas Leys as the preferred candidate.
(8) At the meeting of 31st October 2007 between the Claimants and the First

Respondent, the First Respondent made no mention of the so called assurance or

undertaking given by me that he and the Attorney General would be consulted before the

Commission proceeded with a recommendation to the post of Solicitor General nor did

the First Respondent make any mention of the fact that he considered our actions in

making the recommendation of Prof. Stephen Vasciannie to amount to misbehaviour as

set out in paragraph 6 of his affidavit.

(9) Further at no time during the meeting of 31st October 2007 did I advise the First

Respondent as stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit that I would have the Governor

General send back the recommendation of Professor Stephen Vasciannie for the post of

Solicitor General. The meeting ended when the First Respondent departed for another

appointment after the utterances set out in paragraph 22 of my affidavit.

(10) The contents of paragraph 8 of the First Respondent’s affidavit are therefore

strongly denied, and I reiterate that the former Commissioners were first informed of the

First Respondent’s pronouncement of their misbehaviour upon receipt of the revocation

of their appointments by the Governor General on the 13th December 2007, and learnt of

the details of the allegations of misbehaviour by way of excerpts of the First

Respondent’s letter to the Leader of the Opposition and her Affidavit obtained out of the

Supreme Court as set out in paragraph 31 of my Affidavit.

 (11) In the circumstances, I remain firmly of the view that the Commission discharged

its duties in respect of the recruitment and recommendation of a candidate to be

appointed Solicitor General in accordance with the law and that there was no

misbehaviour on its part in so doing and that the First Respondent’s decision to

recommend the removal of the Applicants for misbehaviour ought to be quashed upon the

grounds set out in the Fixed Date Claim Form filed herein.

SWORN to at )
in the parish of ) ____________________________
this day of 2008 ) DAISY COKE
before me: )

............................................................
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE for the Parish of:

Filed by DunnCox, Attorneys-at-Law for and on behalf of the Claimants herein whose address for service is 48
Duke Street, Kingston, telephone: 922-1500, Fax: 922-9002