The Attorney General's office is currently challenging the ombudsman's recommendation that his office should disclose the information requested in Jerry Enriquez's freedom of information request. That information is the cost of the top-tier attorneys the government retained to fight his injunction to block the elections before redistricting was completed. That case saw its first case management earlier this week and today the AG defended the government's right to challenge a constitutional office, even if the office is currently vacant:
Anthony Sylvester, Attorney General
"As with most case management, what would occur is that the court would give time managements as it relates to the filing and in this particular case, the court gave a timeline for filing of affidavit in response. So this is an appeal that was made by the Attorney General Ministry with respect to a decision that was taken by the Ombudsman. That decision and I need to state this so as to disabuse persons from what has been actually said in the public. I know it has been said and much has been made that, well, how will the state challenge a constitutional office? There's nothing well, first of all, the rule of law, that's a part of the, a constituent part of democracy. What that means simply is that every single office holder, whether it be the Prime Minister, whether it be the Ombudsman, whether it be a judge, that they must, in exercising their function and duty, they must comply with the dictates of the law. And the purpose of launching that review of the Ombudsman decision was so that the court could in fact indicate, which we believe wasn't the case, whether the Ombudsman actually operated fairly in coming to the decision that he came. I won't go into the specifics and the facts because the matter is in front of the court, but as the essence and the rationale and the reason why the matter was challenged. Additionally to point out, there's nothing new; there are precedents. So you've had, for instance, the Attorney General; in two recent cases they've actually challenged the decision of the Public Service Commission with respect to disciplinary actions, their decision in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that were taken against public officers. So in summary, the challenge by the Attorney General or by the state of another constitutional office is nothing new. It's something that part of the process of a constitutionaldemocracy which all persons, all office holders are held to account and their decision can be questioned and challenged in a court of law."
"The Ombudsman is accountable and responsible to Parliament, so that office can make a request through the clerk's office, the Clerk of the National Assembly, for an attorney to represent the Ombudsman. So you don't necessarily need to have an office holder in place at this point in time."
