Dear Editor,
I am disappointed with the reasons given by the Public Service Commission for not appointing Matondo Mukulu to the position of public defender.
I am even more disappointed with what seems to be an attack on him by his predecessor, Earl Witter -- bear in mind that Witter recommended Mukulu to act in the position.
First, the commission, according to a newspaper report, gave among its reasons for not selecting Mukulu youthfulness and inexperience. The same reasons Witter gave after his great discovery of Mukulu's age and that he had only practised constitutional law for just a little more than a decade. I note that Mukulu's lack of adroitness and integrity were not proffered as reasons for his non-selection.
Secondly, it appears, on the face of it, that the former public defender's discoveries are self-serving and are intended to thwart the young man's chance of becoming the youngest public defender of Jamaica. Regrettably, though, the timing -- in the month of December, in which the birth of Jesus is celebrated -- of Witter's discoveries flies in the face of the magnitude of greatness that can come from the very young. Jesus, according to the New Testament, was 36 years old when he was crucified. Yet he left an enduring legacy of love, forgiveness, and kindness throughout the world, which even today represent the embodiment of the Christian faith.
For Witter -- with his vast experience in law and self, as he puts it -- to say that he has made an egregious error in recommending Mukulu as acting public defender, he demonstrates that experience, by itself, does not insulate against poor judgement.
It leaves me to ponder upon the following: How many other egregious errors has Witter made during his tenure in the Office of the Public Defender? Is his revelation an affront to Mukulu for comments he purportedly made about the public defender's office, under Witter's leadership, in sections of the media?
Witter's kind of thinking is, to a large extent, responsible for the underachievement of many of our public sector institutions. While I have the utmost respect for the lessons and wisdom that experience teaches, the value-added advantage of the innovative imagination of an individual should not be sacrificed for experience. Indeed, an individual having a balance of the two -- after passing all the character and leadership tests -- would, in my mind, be the best fit for any position. And, in this instance, Mukulu, during his short stint as acting public defender, has demonstrated the requisite competence and innovative imagination to engage, motivate, and transform public social defence in Jamaica.
Witter, with respect, you have got your opportunity, and you did things your way, but was your way that of the people you served?
Seymour A Webster
Social Justice Advocate
Member of the NIA
sawebster68@hotmail.com
If Mukulu was an error, how many other errors did you make, Witter?
-->
I am disappointed with the reasons given by the Public Service Commission for not appointing Matondo Mukulu to the position of public defender.
I am even more disappointed with what seems to be an attack on him by his predecessor, Earl Witter -- bear in mind that Witter recommended Mukulu to act in the position.
First, the commission, according to a newspaper report, gave among its reasons for not selecting Mukulu youthfulness and inexperience. The same reasons Witter gave after his great discovery of Mukulu's age and that he had only practised constitutional law for just a little more than a decade. I note that Mukulu's lack of adroitness and integrity were not proffered as reasons for his non-selection.
Secondly, it appears, on the face of it, that the former public defender's discoveries are self-serving and are intended to thwart the young man's chance of becoming the youngest public defender of Jamaica. Regrettably, though, the timing -- in the month of December, in which the birth of Jesus is celebrated -- of Witter's discoveries flies in the face of the magnitude of greatness that can come from the very young. Jesus, according to the New Testament, was 36 years old when he was crucified. Yet he left an enduring legacy of love, forgiveness, and kindness throughout the world, which even today represent the embodiment of the Christian faith.
For Witter -- with his vast experience in law and self, as he puts it -- to say that he has made an egregious error in recommending Mukulu as acting public defender, he demonstrates that experience, by itself, does not insulate against poor judgement.
It leaves me to ponder upon the following: How many other egregious errors has Witter made during his tenure in the Office of the Public Defender? Is his revelation an affront to Mukulu for comments he purportedly made about the public defender's office, under Witter's leadership, in sections of the media?
Witter's kind of thinking is, to a large extent, responsible for the underachievement of many of our public sector institutions. While I have the utmost respect for the lessons and wisdom that experience teaches, the value-added advantage of the innovative imagination of an individual should not be sacrificed for experience. Indeed, an individual having a balance of the two -- after passing all the character and leadership tests -- would, in my mind, be the best fit for any position. And, in this instance, Mukulu, during his short stint as acting public defender, has demonstrated the requisite competence and innovative imagination to engage, motivate, and transform public social defence in Jamaica.
Witter, with respect, you have got your opportunity, and you did things your way, but was your way that of the people you served?
Seymour A Webster
Social Justice Advocate
Member of the NIA
sawebster68@hotmail.com
If Mukulu was an error, how many other errors did you make, Witter?
-->