Dear Editor,

One does not have to follow the media closely to know – even feel – that there is widespread agitation over the manner in which the extradition request for Mr Christopher Coke is being handled by the Jamaican authorities. In all of this explosion of emotion, it is important to focus on the more salient aspects of a regrettable situation.

Obfuscation and expedient use of debatable legal and parliamentary technicalities is one thing. All of that may be legitimate and even routine behaviour in the world of real politik, since full disclosure can sometimes be inopportune.

The relevant issue is the cause being served by such behaviour. An “end justifies the means” approach is not always the most palatable, acceptable or justified. But neither, it might be argued, is a pious “speak the truth and speak it ever …” If obfuscation and expedient legal and parliamentary devices are used conscientiously out of necessity to protect or advance the national interest, this ought not to attract opprobrium. Otherwise, most of the world’s national heroes would have been buried in unmarked graves, and their countries with them.

In the present circumstances, that is the basis on which the actions of the administration and political party should be judged.

If the evidence proves that the motivating factor behind the government’s actions was the protection of personal and/or party interest, unsavoury or not, a negative verdict would be automatic.

However, if it can be justified that safeguarding the nation was the reason for these actions, the verdict ought to be tempered with the quality of mercy, and even gratitude. For as disturbing as this might be, there is a very plausible case to be made that extraditing Mr Coke could unleash havoc on the society. A responsible government has a national obligation to seek, through negotiation for example, to avoid or at least minimise the damage without surrendering or over-compromising its integrity. It is a sober reminder that in a democracy – which is based on trust – there are times when the people’s elect ought to be given discretionary latitude to determine the greater good on behalf of the polity.

The jury is still out, until the true nature of discussions with the United States authorities is known.

H Dale Anderson

hdaleanderson@hotmail.com