THE Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) yesterday asked the Government to say if Kingston’s ambassador to Washington, Anthony Johnson, and Solicitor General Douglas Leys were aware of the controversial contract on ‘extradition’ matters with the US law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.

The PNP, at a press conference yesterday at its Old Hope Road headquarters in Kingston, alleged that it would have been unlikely for a such a contract to exist without the knowledge of Johnson and Leys.

PNP spokesman Peter Phillips told reporters that it would have been a “serious dereliction of duty on someone’s part” if such a contract was signed with the Jamaican Government without informing the ambassador and the solicitor general.

“It would be a serious dereliction of duty for the Embassy not to have reported it back to head office,” Phillips added.

Phillips, in Parliament last week, said there was information on the website of the US Justice Department regarding a contract between Manatt, Phelps and Phillip and the Government of Jamaica, which he said named noted attorney-at-law Harold Brady as acting on behalf of the Jamaican Government.

The Government said it was not a client of the US law firm, while Brady has denied acting on behalf of the Jamaican Government.

However, Phillips yesterday asked the Government to say:

* On what basis did the solicitor general believe it was appropriate for private foreign citizens — in the persons of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips — to attend a meeting between the Government of Jamaica and the Government of the United States involving highly sensitive and confidential issues?

* Was the Ambassador of Jamaica to the United States in Washington present at any of the meetings held between the solicitor general and the United States Government authorities at which private foreign citizens from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were also present?

* The question further arises, was the Jamaican Ambassador to the United States in Washington aware that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips were stating that they represent the Government of Jamaica and did he report this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade or anyone else in the Government of Jamaica?

* On what basis would Manatt, Phelps & Phillips have been convinced that they were representing the Government of Jamaica and could so declare to the Justice Department of the United States Government, which continues to report this fact on their website even up to today?

* Did representatives of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips meet with officials of the Government of Jamaica other than the solicitor general? If so, with whom, when and where?

* What steps has the Government of Jamaica taken to clear the record with the US Justice Department to indicate that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is not a representative of the Government of Jamaica?

* Who paid the US$49,892.62 that Manatt, Phelps & Phillips reports to have been paid for services rendered?

* Is it mere coincidence that the date on which the first diplomatic note was sent from the Government of Jamaica to the United States Government requesting additional information concerning the extradition request happens to be the same date on which payment was made to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips for services rendered, which Manatt, Phelps & Phillips maintains was paid on behalf of the Government of Jamaica?

* If it is true, as the Government of Jamaica claims, that Manatt Phelps & Phillips does not represent them, who then is the real client of Manatt Phelps & Phillips?

Source – The Observer