Leadership Succession – Too Important to Step Aside?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas Now, NY, NY, Weds. Oct. 14, 2026: What happens when a leader’s determination to serve threatens the life that makes service possible? Some leaders press on because they believe their mission depends on them instead of having a leadership succession plan. Others fear that stepping aside will erase years of sacrifice. When serious health concerns arise, personal conviction must face an uncomfortable reality: leadership has limits, and human life has value beyond any public office. No public mission is worth a human life, and no office deserves to be held at any cost.

The belief that an institution cannot survive without one person is a warning sign. Sometimes the leader believes it; sometimes those around the leader encourage it because their own influence depends on that person’s continued authority. Meanwhile, potential successors remain untested, succession plans gather dust, and the institution grows vulnerable to a future it should have prepared for. Strong organizations develop new leaders before a crisis makes the decision for them. A leader’s greatest achievement is building an institution that can thrive without the leader’s presence.

TEST OF CHARACTER

Those closest to power face a test of character. Advisers, allies, and family members may struggle to distinguish genuine loyalty from fear of losing access or influence. Their silence may reflect affection or uncertainty, yet good intentions do not remove the need for honest counsel. Responsible decisions require compassion, respect for medical privacy, qualified medical advice, and a clear assessment of the demands of leadership. Health concerns alone do not establish that someone is unfit for office. The decision must reflect credible evidence, individual circumstances, and sound judgment. Loyalty means telling a leader the truth, especially when speaking honestly comes at a personal cost.

Ultimately, the leader must decide whether to continue, guided by appropriate medical advice and candid counsel. The institution must prepare to serve the public under either outcome. Stepping aside can demonstrate wisdom; continuing can demonstrate courage. The circumstances, not personal ambition or the interests of political allies, should determine which course is responsible. Leadership is temporary. Human life is irreplaceable. The final test of leadership is whether a person can protect the mission without sacrificing the life entrusted to lead it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Isaac Newton is a leadership strategist, governance scholar and author specializing in institutional excellence, ethical leadership and human development. Educated at the University of the Southern Caribbean, Oakwood University, Princeton, Columbia and Harvard, he writes on leadership, governance and the development of people and institutions. He is the author of Fix It Preacher, Face Life Squarely and Intimate Intimacy, and co-author of Steps to Good Governance, Daring to Hope, When Nations Kneel and The Belief Code.

RELATED: Trust The Polls Or Test The Facts? Why Election Polls Help, But Never Decide Elections

Jamaica Is Now Taking Migrants For The US From Other Countries – And Its Own Parliament Still Hasn’t Seen The Deal

/0 Comments/in /by

By News Americas Now News Editor

News Americas Now, NY, NY, Thurs. Oct. 14, 2026: The first group of migrants arrived in Jamaica Tuesday under a U.S. deportation agreement that some Jamaican lawmakers say they still haven’t been allowed to read in full – four months after it was signed.

Twenty-two adults, including seven women, landed at Kingston’s Norman Manley International Airport Tuesday afternoon and were bused under police escort to an undisclosed location, the first arrivals under a bilateral memorandum of understanding signed in June that makes Jamaica a transit point for “third-country nationals” the U.S. is deporting – migrants who are not Jamaican and not being sent directly to their home countries. Jamaica joins a growing list of nations, including Guyana, St. Kitts & Nevis, Liberia, Eswatini, and Paraguay, absorbing deportees under similar Trump administration arrangements whose legality the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to settle.

An Avelo flight takes off from Tweed New Haven Airport as advocates gather outside to protest the airlines’ contract to transport deportees on behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
(Tyler Russell/Connecticut Public via Getty Images)

What’s drawing the sharpest criticism in Kingston isn’t the arrivals themselves – it’s that the government negotiated and signed the deal without ever tabling it in Parliament. “Jamaicans are being asked to trust a secret document that touches their security, their communities and their public services,” said Fitz Jackson, the opposition’s national security spokesperson, who has called the failure to table the executed MOU a “blatant contempt to the people of Jamaica.” Opposition Leader Mark Golding has repeatedly pressed the government to say what Jamaica actually gets out of the arrangement.

The government’s defense has been procedural reassurance rather than disclosure. The Ministries of National Security and Foreign Affairs say the program is capped at 25 people every two weeks, that Jamaica isn’t funding it, that no migrant with a criminal record will be allowed through, and that the International Organization for Migration – not Jamaica – is responsible for housing and logistics under its Assisted Voluntary Return program. Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith said this week there is “nothing prejudicial” in the agreement, but confirmed the U.S. has not agreed to make the document public.

That gap – between what officials say is in the deal and the public’s inability to verify it – has fed months of unease. In June, the government had to publicly deny rumors that migrants would be housed in the rural parish of St. Mary. Bishop Alvin Bailey, head of a local evangelical alliance, has questioned why the U.S. couldn’t simply deport people directly to their home countries instead of routing them through Jamaica. “We just don’t trust what the government is saying,” he said.

With arrivals now underway and set to continue every two weeks, the core question Jamaican lawmakers have been asking since June remains unanswered: what, exactly, did Jamaica agree to?

RELATED: US Paid Guyana $7.7 million To Take In Third-Country Deportees