Constitutional amendment was not needed to protect Llewellyn's pension rights, lawyers argue

 

Lawyers representing opposition politicians Phillips Paulwell and Peter Bunting on Wednesday argued that the controversial Constitutional Amendment Act was not needed to protect Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn's pension rights.

 

Government lawyers and the lawyer representing Ms. Llewellyn have been arguing that the controversial Constitutional Amendment Act was necessary to protect Ms. Llewellyn's right to early retirement.

 

But on Wednesday, Kevin Powell, arguing for the respondents, Phillip Paulwell and Peter Bunting, disagreed. He told the court that Ms. Llewellyn was covered by the definition of an existing public officer under the Pensions Act 2017, and that therefore her pension rights had been protected. This, he said, meant she was not "left in the cold" as her lawyer, King's Counsel Douglas Leys, had suggested.

 

Also addressing the court, King's Counsel Michael Hylton said the major question the court has the answer is: Do the principles of Separation of Powers and proper purpose exist in Jamaica's Constitution? And if so, did the Constitutional Amendment Act breach either or both of those principles?