THE RETURNING MEMBERS OF ISLAMIC STATE

The New York Times is reporting this morning that Turkey is holding 2,280 Islamic State members from 30 nations and that all of them will be deported. It's a good bet that there will be more than one or two Trinis in that group (as well as elsewhere) which means that they will be here sooner or later.


But here's the problem: regardless of what these people will say, what are the odds that they have been de-radicalized? Put another way, it is a fair bet that many of these Islamic State members (women as well as men) have received training in terrorist activities and (perhaps more importantly) how to conduct warfare ... especially guerilla warfare.


So? What's the problem, you ask? Well, we know that we have a great many guns ... a lot of real guns, such as AK 47's and semi automatic rifles coming into the country. And a lot means A LOT!!  We also know that we have a very serious gang problem with God knows how many gang members floating around with access to this heavy weaponry. So, if these ISIS members come back home to good old T&T with the specialized training that they have received what do you think the chances are that they will gravitate towards one or the other of these gangs and start to train them in the art of warfare? Such training is not exactly available right now to these gangs ... or at least, I don't think that it is. And when they (the gangs) receive such training what do you think will happen with our already out of control crime situation? And when the ISIS people  come back home how many do you think will or are going to fit right back into society as if they had never left and will get jobs and settle down quietly forever and ever, amen? (I agree with you: not a lot!)


What can be done? Well, the simplest answer is to strip anybody who has joined any terrorist organization of his/her TT citizenship and prevent him/her from ever returning home. But this approach has a large number of rather obvious legal as well as ethical problems and I'm not certain that this would be the right solution. Another approach might be to detain everybody and anybody who went away to join Islamic State and to subject them to what can be euphemistically referred to as "re-education." Again, this is not exactly a good solution and it raises some rather obvious legal and ethical problems.


It is a truism that there is always a solution to every problem. The trouble is that very often the solutions are worse than the problems themselves. Frankly, I really don't know what would be best for our society as regards these ISIS people and how we should handle them. But I do know that their return represents a real threat to our society and that one way or the other we are going to have to deal with it. It is better that  we start to discuss this problem now rather than wait until it is upon us.


For me, this is more important right now than a lot of the platform rhetoric that we are getting about 'who t'ief what' or 'who is de bigger t'ief'. Not that those questions aren't important, but the threat to the safety and security of our little republic is very real and is not something that most of us are bothering to think about.

THE BENEFIT TO T&T OF BEING FRIENDLY WITH MADURO

The internet news site MSN is today reporting that the Government of the United States is accusing President Nicholas Maduro of enriching himself by working with criminal gangs, organized crime and terror groups. The commander of the US Southern Command based in Miami, Admiral Craig Faller is reported as saying "We're seeing an increase in drug trafficking placed out of Venezuela that is aided and abetted by the illegitimate Maduro regime.In fact, the Maduro regime has a negative impact on every single security aspect in this hemisphere. All the challenges are made worse by the Venezuelan crisis." He went on to say that the Maduro Government is getting rich through drug trafficking! "There's over a 50 percent increase of narcotrafficking in and through Venezuela, and Maduro and his cronies are lining their pockets, in cahoots with the illicit narcotrafficking," Faller said.


Okay. This is hardly news to many who believe that this has been going on for some time. But a serious charge, such as this, ought to make those currently in charge of Trinidad & Tobago's own security sit up and take notice ... especially when it comes from such a high ranking source. You see, the Rowley regime has not only continued to recognize the Maburro regime ... I'm sorry, I mean the Maduro regime ... but continues to do business with it. And in the meantime our own crime rate in T&T seems to be soaring through the roof. Everybody (and I mean everybody) knows someone who has either personally been a victim of a crime or who has had a family member, robbed, raped or murdered! That is an alarming fact! And we all know that a lot of "small" crimes simply aren't being reported because the police simply do not do anything about them. Sad, eh?


I have a client who runs a marina in Chagaramus. He tells me that assault rifles and very high powered weaponry is coming across the Gulf of Paria from Venezuela in small boats almost every day! And, he says, they are coming across in crates!! Crates!!


But while our crime rate spirals out of control our Government continues to do business with the Venezuelan Donkey who is nothing if not a thug and a terrible crook! Why?  There is an old saying about 'show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are'. So I say to Messrs. Rowley, Moses, Young et al, exactly who are YOUR friends? And why are we still doing business with Maburro? (And don't tell me because he is the legitimate leader of Venezuela when we all know that he is not. He is an illegal dictator.) Is he your friend? What benefit exactly are we getting from being friendly with this crook? There are many more questions, but if at least we could get an answer to what is listed here we might be better able to understand why it is in our interests to support this thug!


P.S. And to the Donkey, I challenge you to sue me for defamation in the Trinidad Courts of law for calling you a crook, etc. . May I remind you that if you do, you will have to submit yourself to cross-examination and that the truth is an absolute defence!  So come, if your name is man!!

DARYL SMITH 101

Okay. I get it. A lot of people are totally confused about what can euphemistically be referred to as "the Daryl Smith affair". I don't blame them. there have been so many charges and counter charges and claims of cover-up that it is practically impossible to understand what exactly is going on. One can be forgiven for thinking that the Government's playbook in this matter is being taken from the old line "if you can't baffle them with your brilliance, then bamboozle them with B.S." (and by the way, my old history teacher in high school once told me ... and teachers never lie ... that 'B.S.' stands for 'Baloney for Sure'! NOT what you are thinking!!). So perhaps it is time that we go back to the beginning and look at the so-called "facts" that are in the public domain:


Fact 1: A fairly good looking young woman called Carrie Ann Moreau was hired by the then Minister of Sport in some sort of capacity that required her to be in constant and close contact with the Minister. The Minister was Daryl Smith. Exactly what her duties were supposed to be at the Ministry of Sport is not clear. I think that she was to be some sort of assistant to the Minister, but I'm not sure of this nor of exactly what her duties were supposed to be.


Fact 2: Shortly after she joined the Minister's team there was some sort of inter action between the two. The allegation that is in the public domain is that the Minister made some sort of sexual advance to the young lady which made her very uncomfortable and was in fact rejected by her.


Fact 3: Following such rejection she found it impossible to continue with her employment and took her substantive employer, who was the Ministry of Sport, to the Industrial Court and was asking for $225,000 in damages  for wrongful dismissal.


Fact 4: The Ministry of Sport engaged the services of the Prime Minister's personal attorney, Mr. Michael Quamina, to defend the matter.


Fact 5:  Mr. Quamina advised that the case would be lost and advised a settlement.


Fact 6: A settlement figure of $150,000 was arrived at and a settlement agreement was signed between the parties (i.e., Ms. Moreau and the Ministry of Sport) and the money was paid to the young lady. We don't know whether this sum included her legal bill but it probably did.  We don't know of any other monies paid to or for her. Certainly, we don't know what the legal bill was for the Ministry of Sport in this matter. In other words, the cost to the taxpayers could easily be more than the $150,000 ... but how much more, we simply don't know.




Fact 7: The settlement agreement contained a nondisclosure clause forbidding/preventing Ms. Moreau from discussing any aspect of the case. In other words, the existence of this clause effectively prevents the general public from knowing why $150,000 of the public's money was used to settle this case or even why it had to be paid. Put another way, we simply have no facts to go on to find out why the taxpayers had to foot a $150,000 bill that may or may not have been caused in the first place by the misbehavior of the Minister.


Fact 8: All the monies paid to Ms. Moreau (i.e., the $150,000) were public monies. None came out of the Minister's pocket.


Fact 9: The Prime Minister commissioned a report on the whole matter but says that he can't disclose the findings of the report because certain legal formalities were not observed. The claim is that the committee appointed to investigate did not interview the Minister or give him a chance to be heard. The Attorney General has backed up the Prime Minister on this.


Fact 10: Meanwhile the lawyer for Daryl Smith has jumped in and called for the destruction of the report. She also says that reconvening the committee would be a waste of time because the committee is clearly biased against her client having made adverse findings against him. (How she knows that the findings are adverse is not exactly clear.)


Fact 11: Nobody has considered this matter to be important enough to deal with this matter definitively by simply appointing another committee with a remit to investigate the matter and come up with a proper report within a limited period of time ... say, two weeks. Instead, the confusion is allowed to continue and the central issue of what exactly happened and why was it in the Government's interest to have a non-disclosure agreement for the payment of public funds?


So? Where are we? Exactly where we were at the very beginning before all of the above came to light: bamboozled by the B.S. (Baloney for Sure). And we must like it so because there is no public outcry. But then, I guess that's why God is a Trini!

THE SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS OF DR. MOONILAL

Well, I really didn't think that I would see the day anytime soon when I would agree with Finance Minister Colm Imbert that the revelations by South Oropouche MP Roodal Moonilal about A&V Oil and the possible involvement of (inter alia) persons like Prime Minister Keith Rowley, OWTU President General Ancil Roget, MSJ Leader and former Trade Unionist David Abdullah and others was scandalous in the extreme. Now I don't exactly agree with the honourable Finance Minister that the statements were scandalous. They are only scandalous in the meaning that Mr. Imvert ascribed IF they are not true. But if there is a modicum of truth in anything that Dr. Moonilal said, then yes, what the statements contain depict a most scandalous state of affairs.


Now it remains to be seen what happens next! While it is a legal truism that he who alleges must prove, these charges are so serious  that clearly State agencies such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Integrity Commission (IC) and the Commissioner of Police should all swing into immediate action ... and "immediate" must mean immediate! Now! Right away! The first thing that needs to be done is that the various agencies should go and seize ALL documents that everybody has in his/her possession. After all, if anybody is in fact guilty of anything that Dr. Moonilal has alleged don't you think that he/she would be destroying those documents right now?


The various State agencies have an almost sacred duty to investigate this matter quickly and efficiently. Certainly, the FIU has (or ought to have) the resources to, for example, check out the bank account in which Dr. Rowley has allegedly received  a few million US dollars. Shouldn't we know whether this is a fact or not? And we can't take Dr. Rowley's word for it that this is "fake news". If he is innocent that is exactly what he would say. And if he is guilty then that is exactly what he would say! Either way, we are no nearer to the truth without an independent and impartial investigation.


And that is the whole point!  Democracy is a most fragile flower that can easily be destroyed if matters like this are not dealt with openly and comprehensively ... and quickly! We can look at it in two diametrically opposed ways and come to the same conclusion:


Let's say that the allegations are completely false (as the erstwhile Mr. Imbert would have us believe). Then wouldn't it be right and proper that all those whose names have been linked to this scandal would be completely cleared of any and all wrong doing? 


But what if any of the allegations are in fact true? Shouldn't the guilty person(s) be brought to justice? No matter whether he/she is a Prime Minister or a bottle washer?


Remember something: we are talking here of a scandal at the root of which, if true, involves literally billions of dollars and the sale of the nation's crown jewel (Petrotrin)! If any of this is true we are talking about the most bold faced conspiracy that this country has ever seen!


Like everybody else I'm waiting to see what happens next. I do know that if the various State agencies (the FIU, the IC, the DPP etc.) don't swing into action before the end of this week that very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions will arise as to why they are not acting  in addition to those serious allegations raised by Dr. Moonilal. Let's hope that the authorities act ... and act quickly!


And if they don't then perhaps we should consider the possibility of taking them to Court as Gina Miller successfully did in the United Kingdom when she took that country's Government to court over Brexit and the prorogation of Parliament!

Facts, Truths and Brazeness

Sometimes I must confess that I am absolutely amazed at the brazenness of some politicians. Finance Minister Colm Imbert is a classic case in point. His latest pronouncement on yesterday's Sunday Guardian report about the CEPEP allocation being some $21 million less than last year is quite simply unbelievable! A respected university senior lecturer, Dr. Bishnu Ragoonath pointed out that the CEPEP allocation this year was a little less  (about $21 million less) than last year's allocation. So, the learned Doctor rightly concluded that in the absence of any credible (and I want to emphasize that word "credible") explanation (for which there was none in the budget) that this would mean that there would either have to be a reduction in salaries paid to CEPEP workers or there would have to be lay offs or both! A not unreasonable assumption.


But the goodly Minister immediately jumped up and slammed both the Sunday Guardian as well as Dr. Ragoonath of "baseless and scandalous statements".  The Minister went on to say that Dr. Ragoonath was  "unscientific, illogical and bordering on political mischief" to look at a "mere number" in the Budgetary Estimates and come to the conclusion that he had come to. The Minister said that "even a cursory glance at the Estimates over the years will reveal ..." that these Estimates are routinely revised upwards or downwards as the case may be as the fiscal year progresses.


To which explanation I can only say WHAT?  No matter how you cut it $21 million less is $21 million less! And to say that it could be revised later on is begging the point. If you know that it will have to be revised, shouldn't you say so? Shouldn't you, Mr. Minister of Finance, have pointed this out and given us (the public) some sort of explanation? I don't know what. Maybe you could have said that the Man in the Moon told you to do it this way. That would sound more truthful than the extremely brazen and obfuscatory response that you put out which, quite frankly, leads to all sorts of ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that you are angry because you have been caught out and not because Dr. Ragoonath was wrong.


Look, the Minister's response doesn't make sense, and when something doesn't make sense 99 percent of the time it is because the person making the remark doesn't want you to understand. One percent of the time it is because he doesn't want you to understand.


So what is it, Mr. Minister? What don't you want us to understand?  You see, quite frankly, your explanation doesn't really cover or explain why you put out the contradictory figures in the first place. Now, I certainly can't say why  you put them out but one explanation that comes to mind is that you have told the truth and you will not decrease either the number of workers or their salaries  ...until the next elections. Of course, if you win the next elections you can deal with that problem then. It won't matter because you will have already won. And if you lose? Well that would be the UNC's headache and not yours and you can always say that you never intended to cut jobs or salaries and wouldn't have if you had won. Either way you would come out looking good. (Which also suggests that the next elections will be called some time around April/May next year as the money won't have run out yet by then!)


Of course, what is said above is pure speculation, but it makes sense, doesn't it?

One Idea For Dealing With Overcrowding In Our Prisons

Okay. Here is an "out-of-the-box" proposal. Before I start, let me say that I do not have the relevant statistics and that I have no idea how many individuals would be affected by it. But I do believe that our jails are overcrowded and that there are many, many persons in jail who cannot afford bail but have been held on remand for longer than the penalty for which they would have to serve  if they were found to be guilty. This is clearly most unfair.


On the other side, our magistrates courts simply can't cope with the sheer volume of cases that they have to deal with on a daily basis. The result is that a case is called today and for one reason or another it can't be heard so it is put off to another date ... usually more than a month later ... and the poor wretch is sent back to jail. And it continues ...!!


Now, I do believe that a lot of those in Remand are probably as guilty as hell of whatever crime(s) they have been accused of. But that is not how our system of justice is supposed to work. A citizen is entitled as of right to be presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty. But the problem occurs when he can't get bail and is effectively imprisoned indefinitely. Justice should not only be swift, but be fair.


So? How can we fix this? Frankly, no solution is perfect, but fixing this problem ought to be in the forefront of our collective minds. With this in mind, tell me what you think of this:


We give a conditional pardon to all persons who are accused of offences the penalty for which is, say, imprisonment for ten years or less. The condition would be that if they get charged with any crime (even a traffic offence) within, say, the next ten years then they will be charged not only with that new offence but also with this old one for which they were locked up for in the first place.


The intention here is to try and eliminate at the very least some of the back log in the courts and to ease overcrowding in the jails.


I don't have a problem if you disagree with this idea , but I would ask that in any discussion which this idea might generate that we deal with the idea and try to keep politics and race out of it. That there is a problem is widely acknowledged. The question is how should we deal with it? What are your thoughts?

THE ROWLEY CONUNDRUM

 In both today's Guardian and Express the headlines deal with Prime Minister Rowley's rather surprising disclosure in the House of Representatives that former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar had told former minister Marlene McDonald about a month before it happened that she was going to be arrested. One if the newspapers reported that Ms. McDonald did ask the former Prime Minister what was she going to be arrested for, but was just told to "watch" herself (or words to that effect). Clearly, Dr. Rowley was giving this information to the House and the country in an effort to paint Mrs. Persad Bissessar in a bad light.


But (and it is a big "but") the erstwhile Dr. Rowley has inadvertently created a serious problem for himself. You see, he is on record as saying that he knew nothing about Ms. McDonald's impending arrest until after it happened. Is this true? Because if it is not then that means that he has lied about it. But if it is true then the question must arise as to how the PRESENT head of the National Security Council didn't know about it but how the FORMER head of the National Security Council did?


It is not unexpected that former Prime Ministers and Presidents around the world will have their contacts in the national security apparatus and have access to information that we ordinary mortals would not have. But what is expected is that the current holders of those high offices would have better current information than their predecessors. And if they don't, then that would be a very serious matter, indeed!


Look: it is either that Dr. Rowley did know about Ms. McDonald's arrest in advance or he didn't. It would be surprising if he didn't, but if it is true that he didn't then this raises other questions. If he didn't know (as he claims) is it because he didn't read the briefs that would have told him or was this information withheld from him? If the information was withheld from him was the withholding accidental or deliberate? If it was accidental, then who was responsible? And if it was deliberate then not only should we know who was responsible, but why?


Certainly, the evidence suggests that (assuming that Dr. Rowley is telling the truth about not knowing of the impending arrest) Dr. Rowley is not reading his security briefs.  After all, if the former Prime Minister knew about it then on the balance of probabilities the current Prime Minister ought to have known.  This is serious because it would mean that the current head of the National Security Council is not working.


And it is just as serious if the information was deliberately not given to him in advance because this would be as close to a coup as you could possibly get ... the security apparatus deliberately withholding information from the head of the National Security Council!


 If he is not telling the truth then we ought to be told why he has lied to us about this and what else has he lied about?  And that is the conundrum that Dr. Rowley has created for himself. He can't have it both ways.  These questions are far too serious to allow cheap politics to come into play.

I must confess that (probably like most people) I didn't really consider sedition as anything more than a law on the statute books that would allow a government to prosecute somebody (or 'bodies') who was actively advocating the violent overthrow of a government.  I hadn't read the relevant law and was (again probably like most people)most surprised to see that Watson Duke had been arrested and charged with making seditious statements late last year. When I read in the press the statements that Mr. Duke is alleged to have made I did crease my brow in wonder as I didn't think that they were any more inflammatory that I have heard others make. Heck! I have heard none other than Keith Rowley in another incarnation as Opposition Leader say worse things, and although I can't think of an example off the top of my head I am fairly certain that I too have made worse statements than that which the erstwhile Mr. Duke is accused of making.


Put another way,  while almost every politician (both past and present) has probably made worse statements than those which Mr. Duke has been accused of making I'm fairly certain that nobody (myself and Keith Rowley included) intended that the particular government of the day should be ousted by violent means or indeed, by any other means other than the ballot box.


But apparently that is irrelevant. According to section 3 (1)(a) of the Sedition Act Chapter 11:04 a seditious intention is an intention "to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against Government or the Constitution as by law established ...". And then Section 3(1)(c) says that a seditious intention  is an intention "to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago." And then the law goes on to speak about a seditious intention being one where it is intended to promote ill will or hostility between one or more sections of the community or contempt for any "class of inhabitants of Trinidad & Tobago distinguished by race, colour, religion, profession, calling or employment" or killing any members of a group.


Put another way, everybody who has disparagingly referred to the Syrian community as "one percenters" or "one percent" has probably committed sedition as well as the politician Fitzgerald Hinds who has famously called for the killing of Indians.


Now, to be fair to Mr. Hinds, while I considered his remarks to be most distasteful if not racist, I certainly didn't think that he was literally calling for the deaths of Indians. But then I didn't think that Mr. Duke's remarks were seditious either. But Watson Duke has been charged and Fitzgerald Hinds was not. Makes you think, eh?  Why was one charged and not the other? Could it be that Mr. Duke was charged because his political stocks in Tobago are suggesting that his party will win the two Tobago seats in the next general elections?  Is it seditious to ask that question? (Because a casual reading of the Act suggests that it well might be!)


And am I being seditious in writing this? I don't think so. My intention here is simply to point out what I consider to be very, very serious errors being committed by the authorities as regards this whole unfortunate business.  And while I confess that I am now totally disillusioned with Keith Rowley's version of the PNM and sincerely believe that the sooner they are gone the better, I certainly would never advocate their violent overthrow. But do I believe that there are a number of jack-donkeys in ministerial positions? Yes! Unfortunately!


Every society needs laws. That is a given. The whole purpose of any law is to ensure the smooth and fair running of the society and to make sure that weaker members of society are not exploited by wealthier, more powerful persons. But we are free to make such laws as we might believe will assist us towards making a better place and to remove such laws that were once put in place by our colonial rulers in order to make sure that we were kept firmly in our place.


Let me put it like this: let's say that some bright spark in government decides that there should be a law that all men should not be allowed to be in public unless they are wearing green pants. You've only got to look at that to see how stupid it is. But it is the law! So? Shouldn't we remove that stupid law or should we arrest any and everybody who disobeys it? Because, the law, no matter how stupid is the law and must be obeyed!


This Sedition Act is one of those laws. It is an abomination and ought to be removed and the charges against Mr. Duke ought to be dropped.

SEDITION AND LIES

"Sedition is a misdemeanour at common law consisting of acts done, words spoken and published, or writings capable of being a libel published, in each case with intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exercise disaffection against ... the government and constitution ... or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice; or to excite the [citizenry] to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state by law established; or to incite persons to commit any crime in general disturbance of the peace; or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst [the citizenry]; or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of [the citizenry].
Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 10, page 569


I've posted the above so that people can read for themselves what exactly the law of sedition is all about. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that this is a very serious offence and gives the State some fairly wide powers. However, while it is the police who makes the decision to arrest someone for sedition it is the Director of Public prosecutions who decides whether or not that person should be charged and prosecuted for this offence.


So? Where exactly are we with what can loosely be termed "the Watson Duke affair"? You see, questions have arisen in my mind ... with everything else that has been going on in good old T&T ... as to whether or not there really is "fire" behind this "smoke" of his arrest, or whether it's just a 'smoke making machine". I have noticed that up to now we haven't been told exactly what the words are alleged to have been used by Mr. Duke that the police believe might be seditious. (Or at least, I haven't seen it.) Why? There is a not unreasonable suspicion in civil society that the real reason that he has been arrested is because he has been not only offending the living daylights out of the Prime Minister but is also scaring the h*** out of him in Tobago where most pundits are predicting that he will win the two Tobago seats in the next general election! (But that's another story for another time!)


The short point here is that the police should be advised to tread very carefully on this one and take scrupulous care  not to be seen or perceived as a tool (unwitting or otherwise) of the Government.  I suspect that Mr. Duke will not be charged and will eventually be released. If this happens, that would be a huge scandal as most people will believe that his arrest was simply a ploy to scare him and shut him up. If he is eventually charged, I sure hope for the sake of the taxpayers that the State is able to prove its case. Not to win this case would raise too many ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed ... at least for the moment.


Which leads on to the next question: is our Prime Minister a liar? You see, in this morning's Guardian newspaper there is a report (which is not in the Express) that the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that he never met the former Director of the SSA as Prime Minister. Now IF this report is true then it raises all sorts of other questions, the first one being why didn't you meet with him as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the chairman of the National Security Council. The SSA is arguably the most important of the security arms of the State. For a Prime Minister not to meet with the Director of the SSA speaks to a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. You see, either he didn't meet with Dennie because he (Rowley) didn't attend National Security Council meetings or Dennie didn't attend. And if Dennie didn't attend then what did Dr. Rowley do about his non attendance ... because this was never raised in the 2016 case that Dennie won against the State. And if it was Dr. Rowley who didn't attend the meetings then what does that say about him?


Put another way, Dr. Rowley cannot have it both ways. He can't say that he never met Dennie as Prime Minister and did nothing about it. He can't now say that why Dennie was fired is because he (Dennie) didn't attend National Security Council meetings because that was never raised in the 2016 lawsuit. So? The available evidence suggests that he (Rowley) has lied about this. But if he has lied to us about this a legitimate question is what else has he lied to us about?


You see, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is most unlikely that it is a pussy cat!

A NEW SOCIETY

Last week while reeling under the pressure of seeing one of his senior ministers and deputy political leader of his Party , Prime Minister Rowley boasted that his Government was engaged in building a new society.


As a patriot and one who only wants to see this little twin island republic advance, I was thrilled with the news. After all, the innuendo in the boast about building a new society is that things will get better ... and not worse! And who wouldn't want that?! There is so much in our society that needs fixing: the crime situation, the education system, the health care system, the roads, the economy ... and the list goes on! So? Building a new society should mean and ought to be taken to mean that at least some of these really serious problems are going to be fixed at last! And who wouldn't want that?!? I, for one, would love it if at least one thing on the very long list could get fixed ... permanently!


Unfortunately, our dear Prime Minister neglected to say exactly what his vision for this new society was, nor how exactly he and his cohorts were going about building it. I mean, it is very easy to say "we're building a new society". And when you say that everybody will interpret that to mean that you are engaged in making things better. But if you don't say exactly what you are doing or how you are going to do it, you really are just spouting a lot of hot air ... and we've got too much of that as it is!


So, my basic question to Dr. Rowley is what exactly are you doing or planning to do to make this new society come into being? Will this new society make things better for the people? If so, how? What have you done exactly over the last four years that have made life better for us? And please forgive me if I appear to be rude by asking these basic questions. I don't mean to be. Look: it is in EVERYBODY'S interests that the Government of the day ... whether it is PNM or UNC or ABC or anything else ... succeeds. I would love it if this Government succeeds. And why shouldn't I? I'm a citizen and a rising tide floats all boats. If things get better then my personal life should get better too! But the truth is that there is only one reason for politics; only one reason for government: TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE! PERIOD! There is no other reason!!


So, Dr, Rowley, it's back to you: how exactly are you building this new society and what do you envisage it to look like?

THE BOTTOM LINE

I was one of the lawyers at the meeting of the Law Association who had argued that the Prime Minister should be advised to invoke s.137 to impeach the Chief Justice. My argument was (and still is) that a corner stone of our justice system is that a person should be presumed to be innocent unless and until he/she is found guilty after a trial before a jury of his/her peers. The problem that we as a country face is that there are some rather serious accusations being made against the Chief Justice. Are they true? I really don't (and didn't) know. However, (I argued) there is a great need for this issue to be put to rest one way or the other.  The post of Chief Justice is one of the most important posts in our Republic. The Chief Justice is the head of our judiciary and oversees its administration. The mere suspicion that the Chief Justice might be indulging in behavior that raises ugly suspicions cannot be good for the society. We must at all times have the confidence that whomsoever occupies that exalted office that his/her behavior is beyond reproach.


Now, whether you like it or not, very ugly suspicions have arisen about the behavior of the current holder of this office. And they simply won't go away. And to make it worse, The Chief Justice has refused to answer any questions relating to these very ugly suspicions ... a refusal which has only served the purpose of causing some people to wonder what he might be hiding. Put another way, these very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions which  are arising over his behavior  are causing people to lose confidence in the whole administration of justice. After all, they argue, doesn't  fish rot from the head? And if there is corruption at the top what does that say for the whole justice system?


In other words, one way or the other, the society needs answers. Now, what is the best way to get answers? The best way is obviously a trial; either the trial (i.e., the impeachment) of the Chief Justice finds him innocent of the charges or it finds him guilty. Either way the best interests of the society are served.  If he is guilty then he should be removed from office. That is clear! And if he is innocent then whatever suspected stains there might be will be washed away and he will be able to walk proudly in the sunshine without any shadows falling across his path. And that is also in the society's best interests.


The bottom line is that an impeachment trial is absolutely necessary to clear the air ... one way or the other.

THE BAIL BILL

Sometime this afternoon the Parliament will debate a Bill that the Government says is urgently needed in its fight against the criminal elements in the society. The nub or centre of this piece of legislation is the proposal by our political masters that if a person is charged with possession of an illegal (unlicensed) firearm that he will not be eligible for bail for at least 120 days. The arguments for this legislation are that it is desperately needed because the criminal elements in the society are running amok and the time (120 days) is needed to organize the protection of witnesses and to get the evidence together in order to secure a conviction.


Now, bail is a common law right. In other words, it is sacrosanct that a person's freedom will not be taken away without a conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Put another way, your freedom cannot be taken away without a trial. Now, there are certain exceptions to this right, most of which (if not all) relate to offences such as murder and treason which carry the death penalty. But for almost every other crime your right to freedom trumps everything else.


So? Why should we (because the Parliament is us ... represents all of us) want to take away our basic right to freedom before a conviction? Is this a good idea? Tell me: is there anybody out there who believes  that there is no corruption in the police service? Is there anybody who believes that nobody has ever been wrongly or unfairly charged by the police? Is there anybody who believes that there are no corrupt politicians? And if there is nobody who believes this, is there anybody who believes that a corrupt politician/public official has never used his position to get a corrupt police officer to maliciously and falsely charge somebody?


And that is the whole point about the objections to the Bail Bill. The Government is putting out the propaganda that this legislation is needed to curb the violent crime that is gripping the nation. But is this really true? Couldn't the violent crime be curbed by better detection AND rapid convictions? At the moment the conviction rate is nothing short of pathetic. And please don't talk about how long it takes trials to happen! Just the other day two men were freed of a murder charge after ten years in the Remand Yard! TEN years!! Can you imagine being locked up for that length of time and then being found not guilty?!? How would you feel? And can you imagine how you would feel if (for example) you were 'interfering' with somebody's wife or husband and the offended spouse used his/her connections to have you falsely charged and locked up for 120 days (that's 4 months, by the way) and not able to get bail!?


Our system of law is based on the premise that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang. It is a rule that I subscribe to. I recognize absolutely the terrible state of our nation. I recognize that most of us are living in self created "jails" while the criminals roam free. And, like most other people, I really have no sympathy for them. But there is a grave danger that we are 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' with this proposed law. It is not a panacea to the problems that confront us and will only create other problems that we don't need. Heck! Don't you remember how we were told that the Anti Gang legislation was so very badly needed? And now, after what feels like a thousand years later not one person has even been charged under that law! So?


No. This Bail Bill will not solve our problems. The best way to solve our problems is to have better policing, more convictions and an efficient judicial system. But that's another story again!!

EMAILGATE ... THE AFTERMATH

So the Emailgate saga seems to be finally over with the authorities saying that there is absolutely no justiciable evidence to show that former Prime Minister Persad Bissessar conspired with her Attorney General, her National Security Adviser and a senior Cabinet Minister to murder a female journalist.


Apart from the absolutely scandalous nature of these allegations we ought to look at them very carefully and try and figure out from the available evidence who is this "anonymous" author. (For the record, I'm going to refer to the author in this post as "he" but I do acknowledge that it could easily be a "she". I simply don't know who wrote these scandalous allegations.)


So, let's start from the beginning: obviously the prime suspect would be Dr. Rowley himself. After all, he had a fairly obvious motive and we have only his word that he "found" them in his mailbox. (If you believe that, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.) But this is most unlikely. Dr. Rowley has been in Parliament since January 1987. He knows full well that you just don't stand up in Parliament and make some scandalous allegations on the basis of an anonymous report. No. Either he made up the emails himself or he knew the person who gave it to him and believed that person to be credible.


Let me say that I don't believe that Dr. Rowley made up the purported emails. I acknowledge  that this might be quite possible and I certainly wouldn't put my head on a block for this, but I really don't believe that he was the author. No. I believe that it is far more likely that somebody gave them  to him on condition of anonymity. And Dr. Rowley would have trusted that person because of who he was/is and therefore reasonably believed that he (the person who gave him the emails) would have been in a position to confirm the contents of the fake documents. Of course, in these circumstances Dr. Rowley would have believed the author and would have taken the forgeries at face value having been thoroughly duped by the perpetrator.  Now, Dr. Rowley would also know that if he promised that anonymous person that he would not disclose his identity then if he broke that promise he would never get any information again ... and politicians need information from various sources who need to keep their identities secret for all sorts of reasons. If it was feared that Dr. Rowley would "sell out" a source nobody would ever trust him again. So he needed to use the euphemism that he "found" it in his mailbox.


So? Who would have the motive to do such a dastardly act? It would have to be somebody who felt that Mrs. Persad Bissessar had treated him unfairly and had some kind of grudge against the former Prime Minister and her colleagues. So? Who could that be?


Let's do a little forensic thinking: We know that Dr. Rowley made his "disclosures" in May 2013.  What was happening then? Were there any scandals that had occurred then or before then but after the UNC came to power in 2010? It is not unreasonable to presume that the "whistleblower" was either a disgruntled politician or a disgruntled former chairman of some State enterprise who had been fired. So? What politicians or former chairmen around that time were there who might have felt that they had been treated unfairly. Was there anybody who had been fired for something that he claimed was not his fault or who had been made to take the blame for something? If so, what and who?


In Mrs. Persad Bissessar's time there were a number of dismissals of senior politicians but most of these took place AFTER May 2013. Though I can't remember any chairmen being fired in the period in question that doesn't mean that it didn't happen ... it's just that I don't remember. What took place before?  That's where we have to look.


Finally, to produce something looking like a genuine email but which is in fact a fake takes a certain skill ... a certain "computer savvy". I decided to try and produce a fake email just to see if it could be done easily. I failed miserably in my attempts. Then I went to the "experts" in my family ... my two sons (ages 17 and 20) but they told me that to produce a credible forgery you would have to have certain skills on the computer that they simply didn't possess.  So, whoever we are looking for as the author of these fake emails would have to be somebody who either possessed the requisite computer skills or ( more probably) have access to somebody whom he could trust who had the requisite computer skills. Because, a conspiracy like this would require that the author would have to trust the creator of the fake emails absolutely. So? Now we have a profile, the question is who fits it?


P.S.  The question as to who fits the profile is largely rhetorical. I strongly advise that nobody answers that question by saying something like "X" did it. Unless you have good evidence that "Mr.X" is the author I strongly advise that you keep his name to yourself. The purpose of this post is to try and make you think and to ask the questions that the police don't seem to want to know the answers to. Because, if they did, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to close this case!

WHAT MAKES A PERSON A CITIZEN? RACE?

The obviously racial tweets of the American President which were broadcast around the world got me to thinking about the situation here in our own little corner of the world. Trump told four American Congresswomen of colour basically to go back where they came from first before criticizing him or any "American".  Okay, I've paraphrased a little, but that is basically what he said. It didn't matter that three of the women were actually born in the United States or that the fourth, who was born in Somalia, became a citizen of the USA. No. It only mattered that they were obviously not white and therefore didn't belong in America. He might as well have put up a sign "This country reserved for whites only ... and only whites of a certain background ... not all whites accepted!"


I don't want to get into Trump's obviously racial agenda nor to tell the Americans what I think they should do with him. (Clearly, it wouldn't be at all complimentary!) But I do want to discuss what makes a person a citizen of any country. You see, as far as I am concerned you can become a citizen in basically three different ways: first of all, you can acquire citizenship by actually being born in the particular country. Secondly, you can acquire citizenship through either one or both of your parents even if you were actually born elsewhere. And thirdly, you can acquire citizenship by applying for it and getting it once you have fulfilled all of the requirements that have been laid down by that country's laws.


Now, it seems to me that most times if a person is applying for citizenship of a country to which he/she does not have  birthright that this type of person is probably anxious to "put down his/her bucket" and contribute to the society. In other words, generally speaking, a person to be welcomed. And, yes, I am aware that there are (unfortunately) exceptions to this statement.


But should a person who is not born in a country but becomes a citizen be regarded differently from one who is born there? In other words, are there ... or should there be ... different classes of citizenship? I personally don't think so, but what do you think?


I am asking this question because here in good old T&T the population is more or less evenly divided between those of African and Indian descent (with mixed, whites and Syrians making up a small percentage of the whole).  But if you go into either of the two main communities (if I am allowed to use that word) you will soon find lingering just below the surface a complete distrust of the "other side".  As a result, the country remains paralyzed because you can't vote for "them" if you are one of "us". Issues and policies are rarely, if ever, discussed without the looming specter of race colouring every viewpoint. Oh yes! Money comes into play (as it does elsewhere) but nowhere as strongly as the race card which is pulled out again and again whenever one side or the other feels that its support is slipping and needs to be shored up.


So I come back to my question: what makes a person a citizen? His ethnicity? Because, quite frankly, its not only the idiot of an American President who obviously believes that nonsense. And the sooner we as a society genuinely  condemns racism in all of its forms the better. Unfortunately, racism is not a disease that affects only one type of ethnicity, but strikes at all! And until we collectively acknowledge that all of us have an equal right not only to be here, but as to how we think the country should be run we'll be spinning the proverbial top in the proverbial mud! In other words, criticize the ideas but not the personalities.

OF PALACE COUPS AND INTRIGUE

Okay. Here's what we know: Prime Minister Keith Rowley has slammed the Americans twice in the last year. The first time was when he publicly blasted the American Ambassador effectively telling him to mind his own business over T&T's relations with Venezuela and the second was more recently when he blasted the US State Department over its listing T&T as a two tier country in terms of human trafficking. (It didn't matter to our Prime Minister that there is a lot of trafficking especially of young girls and women going on). On both occasions the American response was muted, but on this last time the Masters of Marli Street went out of their way to praise the erstwhile Minister of Everything and National Security, Stewart Young.


Now, here's the rumour: certain persons inside the PNM are reporting that the Americans are not at all pleased with Dr. Rowley. Well, no surprise there. But they go on that they  (the Americans) would like to see the back of Dr. Rowley, but  apparently don't want to see Kamla back in the saddle. In the circumstances, the rumour is that the Americans are seriously considering how to organize something of a 'palace coup' replacing Dr. Rowley with Mr. Young, with whom they feel much more comfortable.


Question: where is Mr. Young in all this palace intrigue? Is he actively stoking the proverbial fires of 'revolution', or is he just sitting back and letting events take their course? Or, is he actively trying to stamp out this particular fire? What is clear is that if there is any glimmer of truth in these rumours we will be in for interesting times as the PNM and the country gear up for the looming general elections. Dr. Rowley will be looking very carefully at what his Minister is doing and who he is talking to!


PNM has successfully positioned itself to be seen as the country's "default party", much like the Republican party in the United States. In other words, the country can experiment from time to time with other political parties, but the PNM will always be there to "pick up the slack" whenever needed. At least, that is part of the myth that the PNM has built for itself over the years, and as Hitler (and now Trump) found out, the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated the more people will believe it.  So it doesn't matter whether that is true or not, or even if the PNM of today is the same (or not) of the PNM of 1956. All that matters is that the average person believes that the PNM can be counted on to save the country when times get rough. Perception, in other words, is always reality ... especially in politics!


So, the lesson is that if you want to control the country, control the party, i.e., the PNM! And that is why we should pay attention to these rumours. While it is true that as John F. Kennedy once said 'where there is smoke there's a smoke making machine', more often than not the old adage about 'where there's smoke there's fire' is often more accurate. And if the rumour has any semblance of truth in it then we will soon see some subtle moves at the top as the players reposition themselves. We should all pay close attention. It's going to be interesting.

THE MIGRANT CRISIS: A SOLUTION

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: if you want to fix a problem, you have to go back to basics. Now, we have a serious problem in good old T&T, and that is the fact that we are being overrun by Venezuelan immigrants fleeing Maburro's murderous and incompetent regime. Look, we have a small population. Nobody seems to know exactly what the size of our population is, but most people (including me) seem to think that it is in the region of about 1.5 million people, so let's assume (though not necessarily accept) that this is a correct figure.  Now, Venezuela has (or had) a population of about 30 million people.


At the beginning of this year it was estimated that about 3 million people had left ... migrated ... from Venezuela, with the majority going to other Latin American countries like Colombia. Some had come here. But as the situation in Venezuela has continued to deteriorate that migration has picked up steam so that it is now estimated that some 3.7 million people have left that unfortunate country and that before the end of this year there will be an estimated 4 million migrants! Put anther way, that will be some 4 million people who are so desperate that they have left everything behind to start life anew in another country. And those coming here can't even speak the language! Can you imagine how desperate they must be?!  How bad the situation is for them to leave everything behind to come here?


And here is where we come in. With registration of Venezuelan migrants closing tomorrow (Friday 14th June, 2019) there is now a sudden rush to register. There are also unconfirmed reports that the number of boat loads of migrants from the mainland have increased substantially over the last week as thousands of Venezuelans are rushing to get some sort of legal permission to stay in Trinidad.


Now, nobody knows exactly how many Venezuelans there are here right now. And certainly, by Friday night, it is not unreasonable to  presume that only a very small percentage of those actually over here will be registered. So? How many do you think are actually here? Fiftty thousand? A hundred thousand?


You realize that it is quite possible that there could be around 75,000 Venezuelans over here (taking a middle number of between 50,000 and 100,000)!? In other words, very roughly, our population has increased by about 5 percent this year! Now, do you see the problem? The United States (which is far wealthier than we are) has a population of about 300 million. Five percent of that figure would be 15 million! But their migrant problem is not even a million ... and yet there are many (starting with their idiot of a President) who complain!


My point here is that it is crystal clear that we simply cannot cope with this level of migration and as much as any and every God fearing and fair minded person would want to help, we simply haven't got the resources to do so. And sending them back is inhumane. It is a little like your neighbor is beating his wife and children so badly that they flee to your house for protection. They have no money and no means of supporting themselves so you can't turn them out onto the street and you can't send them back home because the husband will literally beat them to death. But You can't afford to feed them! So? What in the name of heaven do you do?


Remember how I started this post about going back to basics? In the example given above, the best solution would be to go to Court and get an Order putting the husband out of the house and an Order that he is not to go anywhere near the wife and children. Well, this is my point with the migrants: the root cause of this problem is Maburro and his devastating policies and thievery  that have not only ruined his country but are now causing ours to be ruined. He must be made to go ... NOW!!  This migrant problem will only get worse if we don't help the Venezuelans to fix THEIR problem NOW! Because, not fixing their problem is only going to create multiple problems for US!!! And Venezuela can't fix with the Donkey and his cronies in power over there!


P.S.  Astute readers will note that I have deliberately not gone into the 'blame game' and how I think that this problem could/might have been avoided in the first place. That is a luxury that we can all debate later. In the meantime, let's fix the present problem now.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

According to a newspaper report this morning (Tuesday 4th June, 2019) some 2,500 Venezuelans have registered under the TT Government's amnesty/registration program. According also to newspaper reports the Government appears to be quite pleased with the exercise currently going on. So? If all the reports are true, then we should all sit back and pat the Government on its proverbial back, shouldn't we?


Here's where I say 'hold it sheriff, she's heading for the strawberry patch'! You see, the government has said that it will hold this registration exercise over a 14 day period. Now, the exercise started last Friday, 4 days ago (not counting today). In other words, an average of 625 Venezuelans were registered every day for the last 4 days. So, if we extrapolate those numbers out we get 8,750 (14 x 8,750). In other words we can expect a little less than 10,000 Venezuelans to register.


So? Question: assuming that there is no big rush at the end of the registration period and the average daily registration climbs to, say, 700 per day, that number (9,800) still comes to less than 10,000. Does this mean (a) that the majority of Venezuelans here are not registering, or (b) the reports of TT being swamped by illegal immigration are woefully inaccurate, or (c) a bit of both? My personal bet (with absolutely nothing to back it up except my gut) is that the answer is (c).


So, assuming (but not accepting) that my gut is right, then the question is 'why'? Why are the majority of Venezuelans not registering? Why are the reports inaccurate?


In answer to the first 'why' I think that the reason that the majority are not registering is a simple one: a lack of trust. Frankly, given all the past actions and statements of "jefes" in the TT Government, would you trust them NOT to turn you over to Maburro & Co. if you had fled that murderous regime fearing for your life ... literally? I'm not sure that I would.


Then, onto item (b) ... the inaccurate reporting of the immigration problem. Again, let me be clear: I have nothing to go on but my gut in this. To the best of my knowledge there are no reasonably accurate reports as to the extent of the problem. But I do believe (my gut again) that we are indeed being swamped by illegal immigration. What I don't know is how bad is it? How much of a problem do we have?


It seems that (unsurprisingly) the problem is much more acute in the South than anywhere else. But neither the authorities nor the main stream media (who you might think both  have the resources to answer these type of questions) have apparently not  bothered to get any hard data on this.


Let's understand something clearly: assuming that our population figures from the Central Statistical Office are reasonably accurate, we are a nation of approximately 1.4 million souls. Now, assuming that we have somewhere around 100,000 legal or illegal Venezuelans coming over here that means that we have an almost 10 percent increase in our population overnight! No nation on this planet can suffer such an increase in its population in such a short space of time and not have disastrous consequences. 


But our Government's solutions seem to be deflect, deflect and deflect. The root cause of our problem is the murderous, narco driven dictatorship of Messrs. Maburro & Co. For crying out loud, when are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? Until then, you know exactly what's wrong with this picture!

THE REFUGEE CRISIS

It is a truism that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them in the first place. And to say that we in good old T&T remained blissfully unaware of the very real problems that Maburro et al were creating in Venezuela is sadly true. The leaders of our own Government were happy to join conga lines and dance with the Venezuelan dictator while professing "neutrality" in the crisis that was engulfing that unhappy South American nation. Although some of us were trying to point out that the problems next door were serious and could come back to "bite" us our local media happily ignored the problems being created by the Donkey and continued to support our Government's neutrality.


But then, all of a sudden, people began to notice that there was a very large number of Venezuelan refugees here (mostly) in Trinidad. I have seen no reliable numbers as to how many Venezuelan refugees are over here ... I've seen estimates of 40,000 on the low side all the way to 80,000 on the high side. What is correct, I haven't a clue! All I do know is that our little country simply can't cope with the numbers coming over in what feels like droves. We are being overwhelmed. And it is going to get worse ... much worse!


But wasn't this predictable? And if it was (and I believe that it was) then why didn't our Government realize this early o'clock and deal with the root cause of this humanitarian disaster? Because, make no mistake about it: the root cause is the complete and utter failure of Maburro & Co. to run their country in an honest and effective manner. We (i.e., T&T) would have been better off calling on Maburro either to go or to hold HONEST and FAIR Presidential elections and siding with all those who refused to support him until he allowed the people to choose fairly. But we didn't! Instead, we effectively gave the Donkey critical support in the rather stupid and unrealistic hope of getting the Dragon Gas deal through the Opposition dominated National Assembly. And we 'cussed up' the United States, our largest trading partner, in the process. Really smart! Really in our country's best interests!


And now we have  a terrible crisis on our hands. It is inhumane to send the refugees back. But we simply can't afford to keep them here! No matter which way you turn the problem, people are going to suffer ... greatly! The only solution that I can see is a verrrryyyyy long term one: first, you have to get rid of the dictator... and the sooner the better! He and his cronies are the root cause of everything and the problems won't get better as long as they remain in power. In fact, they'll only get worse. Then you have to rebuild the country ... and that's a 20 year project. But we don't have the luxury of 20 years! And finally, we have to recognize that in everything, T&T must come first and it is not always in our best interests to be 'neutral'.


But we also have to be honest with ourselves. We are in this mess now because we were happy to pretend that the problems next door were not ours and therefore we shouldn't interfere when we could have and should have.

HOW DICTATORSHIPS START

On Sunday my wife and 16 year old son while driving in Diego Martin near to Victoria Gardens were stopped in a police roadblock. Okay. no complaint there. After producing her (Trinidadian) driver's licence and insurance, the police officer asked her where she was from. Why? I suppose the officer heard her accent ... she is Venezuelan. Then he asked her how long she had been here in Trinidad? She replied truthfully ... 22 years. He appeared not to believe her.  But her driver's licence shows when it was first issued. So? Why would he ask her that? Then the policeman turned to my son and asked for his ID ... which my 16 year old son had on him. Then the officer asked my son what was his ethnicity. When my son replied 'Trinidadian' he was told roughly 'that's your nationality, not your ethnicity'. Would he have asked my son that if my son was another colour? Certainly, if I had been in the car the policeman would have been directed to a short jetty in the Gulf of Paria and told to take a long jump.


Now, I don't know about you, but I found these questions to be as offensive as they were disturbing and when my wife and son came home and reported the incident to me I was as upset as I ought to have been. It is probably better that I don't say what I thought were his reasons for asking those questions, but I was and am offended and annoyed.  Look, it is either we live under a system of law or we don't. We can't pretend that we are law abiding when the police so casually trample upon our constitutional rights and ask intrusive questions that have no place in a civilized and law abiding community.


Then last Friday a client came to see me because he said that he said that he had received a call from a police woman from the St. James police station concerning a domestic dispute between him and his live in girlfriend. But the woman police officer didn't leave her name and when I called the number on his cell phone from which the call had been received there was no answer! So? Was it a real call? If so, why didn't the officer identify herself and why was there no answer from the landline on which the original call had been made? Because I called the number and got no reply! Or is it that the police do not now answer their landline telephones?


I guess I'm already keyed up and annoyed because of the reports in the newspapers about the WASA police seizing farmers' water pumps. Let me explain: all the fresh water that comes out of the ground in this country belongs to WASA and you can't even drill a well on your property at home and extract it without a licence. So, if the farmers did take water from a stream without a licence to do so then they have committed an offence and can be fined for that offence.




BUT (and it is a big "but") the Constitution of our Republic gives all of us a right to private property. Put another way, no policeman can take away anything from you WITHOUT  a Court Order. Anybody who does so is committing an offence. Put another way, two, or even three wrongs do not make a right.


Well, you might say that is no big thing. But it is a big thing. This is how dictatorships start ... take control of little things and gradually work up to bigger things.


Then we had the Gulf View searches in La Romaine. To date the police have not produced the search warrants. Again, why is this a big thing? Because as long ago as 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed a man's home was regarded as his castle and the State cannot enter into a man's home without lawful authority. This means that unless the police are in hot pursuit of a criminal they cannot enter anybody's property without lawful authority ... a search warrant or a Court Order... and if they do not show the owner the warrant he is within his legal right to refuse entry. Further, the police officer showing the warrant must be identified in the warrant as well as any other police officers who are looking to enter and search the house.


Now, from the news reports it seems that five houses were searched. Question: how many search warrants were issued? Another question: why has it been so difficult to produce the warrants? Another question again: why did some police officers cover their faces?


Then we have the ongoing problem of a policeman in a police car turning on his siren to get out of traffic to the annoyance of everyone. Heck, every weekday morning at around 7:15am I see a police jeep speeding eastwards in Cocorite with its siren blaring. You mean to tell me that you really believe that every weekday morning at about that time there is a police emergency?  Really? Pull the other one ... it's got bells on it!


This is the way that dictatorships start. At first the authorities abuse their powers in small ways and when there is no 'push back' then they push a little more, and then a little more and so on until before you know it your rights have flown out the window. 


One of the favourite excuses for the sort of police actions that we have been seeing recently is this is being done because of the extraordinary crime wave that we are experiencing. But, hello! That is what states of emergency were designed for under the Constitution. The advantage of having a state of emergency is that everybody knows that constitutional rights are suspended AND they are always for a limited time AND appropriate questions can be asked in Parliament ... which, after all, is what is supposed to happen.


What is not supposed to happen is that the police can effectively operate as if they are a law unto themselves and not give any account for their actions. We DO have a right to know and we DO have a right to ask questions and we DO have a right to push back against unlawful searches and seizures. At least, that is what our laws still say. If these laws have been changed then nobody has told me!

THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

When Trinbagonians go to the polls in a general election (whether later this year as many believe will happen, or in September next year when it is due) it could very well be the last time for a very long time that the PNM wins an overall majority, unless the Party renews itself and starts to deliver on its promises to increasingly disgruntled supporters. Certainly, the available evidence suggests that just ain't gonna happen any time soon ... but a week is a long time in politics and unless your name is Vishnu Bisram of NACTA fame you will not want to make any type of prediction to have it come back and bite you in the nether regions! We'll have to wait and see, even though many of us still feel that we're getting wet by the rain that the erstwhile Finance Minister says has gone which allows him now to see clearly.


As things stand today (and certainly not tomorrow or even next week) the opposition UNC is likely to retain its 18 seats.  But the real fight will be in the marginal seats,  and as things stand right now it very much looks like the PNM may take a hit in those marginal seats that it now holds. Assuming (though obviously not accepting) that my crystal ball is fairly accurate as to how things stand today, it looks like the PNM will take a hit (i.e., it will lose) at least San Fernando West, St. Joseph, Tunapuna and Tobago East. In the first 3, if the UNC wins them while holding on to it's 18 seats that puts them over the top and into government. (Remember that the "magic" number is 21!) If the PNM loses all 3 but manages to "steal" a UNC seat (which I honestly don't see happening ... but, hey! We're speculating) then we get a rather interesting scenario with Watson Duke & Co. holding Tobago East and therefore the balance of power. (I'm saying this based on various reports that I have received which suggest that Mr. Duke will win Tobago East if there was an election today!) Now, if THAT happens, we could well be reading "Prime Minister Watson Duke said today ..."! Don't laugh! It could happen and Mr. Duke seems to be playing for just that eventuality.


Further,  I will be the first to admit that there are other PNM seats that look as though they might be up for grabs. My list of 3 seats falling in Trinidad is by no means meant to be conclusive. Honestly, as things stand right now I believe that at least another 2 PNM held seats will fall (Moruga/Tableland and La Horquetta/Talparo).  My real point is that in the Parliamentary system that we have its no good saying "I feel that X party will win". You have to say which seats will stay and which will fall to the other side (whoever "the other side" might be). And that's what I'm trying to do here.


That we (the T&T electorate) have a very real problem and a very serious choice to make when the election comes is indisputable. Both major political parties have huge corruption issues attached to their names. The UNC is still struggling with all of the allegations against them and which have been given new life by the Ramlogan/Ramdeen charges. But the ruling PNM is also facing some terrible allegations of corruption such as the depositing of $140,000 in cash by a senior minister with no explanation being given as to where the cash came from, the closure of Petrotrin and the proposed sale of the refinery, the "Fake Oil" scandal, the Tobago ferries, the Australian boats,  "Emailgate", etc.. Unfortunately, the list on both sides is too long for comfort.


Sadly, I expect the 'race card' to be played in the next elections. There already is some evidence of this happening.  Maybe that is the real reason why we can't seem to get our act together and make this little country of ours the proverbial "shining city on the hill".

A VALID CHARGE ... OR A MASSIVE DISTRACTION

Okay. At this early stage of proceedings there are very few of us who will have any idea as to what exactly is going on in the Ramlogan/Ramdeen matter and whether or not there really is something for all of us to be concerned about. After all, where there is smoke there is fire ... or a smoke making machine! And there's my problem. Well, we'll all find out soon enough, I guess, but there are some rather troubling aspects of this whole affair which have caused me to raise my eyebrows in wonder.


The first thing that I have noticed is that Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan have only been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime ... and not with having committed the actual crime which they are alleged to have conspired to commit. Why? Conspiracy is one of the most difficult crimes to prove and usually charges under this head of criminal law are brought in conjunction with the actual crime which the perpetrators have allegedly conspired to commit. But that isn't the case here! Why? Did any money pass? If so, then why isn't that part of the case as well?


Then there is the curious case of the Jamaican-born English QC pleading guilty under a plea agreement which we haven't seen ... at least not yet. Okay. The reports say that the plea agreement will be presented in the High Court next week so it is a fair argument to say that it cannot be published until the presiding Judge sees it. (Although I would be prepared to argue otherwise ... but that is another argument and not relevant to this post.) In other words, is the learned gentleman going to be allowed to keep his money which apparently he is saying was part of a conspiracy? Or is it that he is saying that no money passed but he is guilty of conspiring with Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan and perhaps others to make money pass?


You see, as I understand the law, (and I will happily admit that my understanding may be incomplete) the recent Explain Your Wealth Act and other relevant legislation effectively means that if I receive, say, $100 under circumstances which involve the commission of a crime (such as conspiracy) and I conspire with you (who are organizing/approving the payment for me) to give you, say, $50 out of the $100 then the entire $100 becomes forfeit to the State if I am proven guilty and I have to pay the whole $100 back.


So my question is: is this guy, Nelson Vincent QC, going to have to pay back any or all of the millions that he is reported to have received? And if not, why not? And if so, how much and when will he pay it back under the plea agreement? Immediately? Or has he done so already? If he has paid it back, when did he do so?


No. There is something not quite right with this whole story. Exactly what is not right I can't say, but it is clear that we are not getting the whole story. If we do get the whole story at some time in the future, then there you go! All is well. But why can't we be given the whole story now? Something is just not right and there are too many "whys" arising which need to be explained. It isn't that they can't be explained, but that they are not being explained.


Of course, the possibility exists that all this could just be a massive distraction and elections are going to be called fairly soon.  Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy when thoughts like this can even arise and leave you wondering?

WASA'S 'DEVASTATING' DRY SEASON

Look, I'm the first to admit that we are in the throes of a dry season. I also have stopped watering my garden (thereby losing half of my plants and half of my lawn) and don't wash the car every week in an effort to do my own little bit to help conserve precious water. After all, if everybody cuts back on his/her water consumption there will be savings ... and every little bit helps. And no, I'm not some sort of hero ... just an ordinary person trying to help.


But what confuses me are the continuing reports in the mainstream media that this is a "devastating" dry season that is worse than usual and WASA has a real problem in keeping us all supplied BECAUSE of the dry weather. (No mention, of course, of the millions of gallons being lost on a daily basis because of leaky pipes!)


You see, I live in North Western Trinidad (Maraval to be precise). Now when we have a really bad dry season the hills in Maraval turn brown and by this time of year (the end of April) there are usually terrible forest fires raging in those hills. But ... guess what? This year I have seen no forest fires and the hills are still fairly green! Going into Diego Martin I find that the hills also look greener than they do during a really harsh dry season.  Now, the hills are not what you might call "lush" green, but they are certainly not brown ... which they normally are at this time of year.


In addition, there have been showers that have managed to keep lawns and plants alive in my neighbourhood.


So? What is going on? Are we really in the throes of a devastating dry season? Or are we being subjected to propaganda by the powers-that-be in order to "take in front" for the incompetence of those charged with providing us with a safe and secure water supply? Because, although I will readily confess to not having a PhD in meteorology my simple and most unscientific observation is that this particular dry season is not soooo bad ... which is what the authorities would have us believe.


So? Why are we getting these constant statements to the effect that this is the worst dry season for a long time? And why isn't the mainstream media reporting or questioning the statements about this being the worst dry season ever, etc.? Something here just doesn't add up. What? And why?

TO IMPEACH OR NOT TO IMPEACH

While the whole world is fixated on the Mueller report and whether or not President Trump should or should not be impeached, a lot of people have forgotten that we have going on in good old T&T our own little impeachment drama, which although not of earth shattering importance to the rest of the world, is of great importance to our democracy and how we govern ourselves. I am talking about the recommendation by the Law Association of Trinidad & Tobago  to the Prime Minister made some four or five months ago that he should trigger the provisions of section 137 of the Constitution which sets out how a Chief Justice might be removed from office. For the record, here is what the relevant parts of the section say:


"137(1) A Judge may be removed from office ... for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with this provision.
        (3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice ... represents to the President that the question of removing a Judge under this section ought to be so investigated, then -
            (a) the President shall appoint  a tribunal ... ."


The section goes on to detail how the tribunal is to be appointed and is supposed to act or investigate. In other words, the Chief Justice is put on trial for the acts or decisions that may warrant removal from office. Eventually, the findings of the tribunal are sent to the Privy Council for a final decision.  It is important to note that triggering the impeachment process is NOT finding the Chief Justice guilty. It is simply saying, hey, there are a number of matters here that need to be answered which may or may not be a good reason to remove you from office if you are guilty of all or any of them.


There are a number of safeguards built into the whole impeachment process that can ensure that a Chief Justice is not dealt with unfairly ... and all right thinking peoples will agree entirely with these safeguards.  Our system of justice is sacrosanct. Without a fair system of justice that everybody buys into (regardless of one's political bias or interest) then what you have is a dictatorship ... benign or otherwise. And the safeguards are there to ensure that a politician just can't remove a judge or a Chief Justice just like that.


Now, there are, unfortunately. a fair number of questions hanging over the head of the current Chief Justice. Any fair minded person ought readily to concede that he may well be innocent of every single charge, just as he may be guilty of any or all of them. But what is clear is that there has been no open investigation and no opportunity for the embattled gentleman to put his answers. No matter how one might feel about the current Chief Justice ... whether he is good, bad or indifferent ... the point here is that both he and the country need to have the air completely cleared. If there is a stain then he ought to be removed. If there is no stain then he ought to be exonerated. But what we have now is that the current holder of that high office is operating under a very dark cloud of suspicion which is not good for him personally nor is it good for the country. One way or the other the air needs to be cleared.


The Constitution provides a beacon of principle and  democratic values to the country. The Prime Minister must pick up the baton which the Law Association has sent to him and trigger the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. But it needs to be clearly understood that the Chief Justice may very well be innocent of the various crimes and misbehaviours of which he stands accused and we all should be most wary of rushing to judgment merely because the process has been triggered.


And the Prime Minister should be acutely aware that perception is often reality and that  there is a perception amongst certain sections of our society that his refusal to date to trigger the impeachment process is based more on perceptions of race and of tribal loyalty than of what is best for the country. These perceptions are as unfortunate as they are dangerous for our society and it is necessary that they be addressed head on. Our justice system requires it. Indeed, the survival of our democracy demands it.

DEVALUATIONS AND ELECTIONS

In the past few days there has been an increased commentary by persons on both sides of the political divide about whether or not Trinidad & Tobago will devalue it's currency. Right now the official exchange rate is hovering around US$1 equals TT$6.75. However, there is a dearth of availability of US dollars for any reason ... whether legitimate or otherwise ... and the black market rate is now hovering around TT$9 equals US$1.


The authorities from time to time issue stern warnings about black market foreign currency deals, which warnings are cheerfully ignored by the populace as a whole. Indeed, unless you have a contact getting any amount of foreign currency is difficult if not impossible. One mother that I know was the other day desperately trying to get US$2,000 to send to her son who is in university in the States. On the one hand, its not a lot of money, but on the other hand the money is desperately needed by the young man to pay his rent and buy food! She couldn't get the foreign currency in time from the bank so she bought the money on the black market. When the bank finally came through (after about two weeks) she took the money from the bank and promptly resold it on the black market to recoup her loss when she was forced to buy.


Of course, the problem is exacerbated by the local banks who buy the foreign currency at comparatively low rates and resell it at a huge profit! But, at least they are legal! In any case, the (mis)behaviour of the banks is another story. It is suffice to note at this time that they are not at all innocent in this mess and have actually helped to exacerbate the problem with their greedy and predatory way of doing business.


In the meantime the country is bleeding heavily. Our foreign currency reserves are falling at an alarming rate and we now have less than a year of import cover. So? What should we do?


The Government spokesmen (and women) talk about "diversification". Sounds good, eh? But in reality how serious are they? Let me give you an example: Trinidad & Tobago imports tomatoes. Now, I am ashamed to admit that I haven't a clue how much a pound of tomatoes costs ... my wife does all of our groceries! But let's pretend for the sake of example that a pound of tomatoes costs an importer US$1 per pound. Now, if T&T were to devalue (and let's be drastic for the sake again of example) to say US$1 now equals TT$20 it won't take a genius to realize that the importation of tomatoes would no longer be a good business. People just wouldn't be able to afford to buy the imported product. The end result would be that local farmers would finally be able to compete with the international product. In other words, and using this rather over-simplified example, the devaluation would have allowed a certain diversification in a part of the agricultural sector.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that a devaluation would also cause a tidal wave throughout the local economy. For example, motor cars and trucks would all of a sudden become prohibitively expensive.  I'm sure you get my point. A devaluation is a fairly classic device that governments can use to prevent foreign exchange from leaking out.


Which brings me to my next point: devaluations always cause hardships in the society ... especially amongst the poorer classes. Everybody's life becomes more expensive and it becomes harder to make ends meet. It is no wonder, therefore, that most governments try desperately to avoid this step.  But a general election is due by September next year. The Government can borrow enough over the next few months that will allow the standard of living to be held or maintained ... more or less ... for another year, but it's room for maneuver is going to become more and more restricted as time goes by. Put another way, there is nothing on our economic horizon, either in terms of some miraculous bailout (like  a massive oil discovery) or in terms of new economic proposals that remotely look like an end to the economic hurricane that is battering us right now.


An early election would avoid the Government having to devalue the currency ... they could always do it after. But the truth is that a devaluation is beginning to look more and more like the only way out for us. I would love to be wrong on this, but I have a very real fear that if we don't bite this particular bullet soon our delaying "taking in front" will be even worse for us when our reserves finally run out and we are forced to go ignominiously cap in hand (as we did in the late eighties) to the IMF.

THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH BILL

The principle that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been a bedrock principle of our law since almost the beginning of time.  It is also enshrined into our Constitution that no one shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. There is also the old adage that our legal system promotes that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang.


That is why I was most shocked and dismayed when I read Mr. Faris Al Rawi's latest attempt at closing loopholes that allow all kinds of criminals (especially white collar ones) to escape from the long arm of the law. Basically, the erstwhile Attorney General is saying that this Bill is necessary because there are too many people who have unexplained wealth and that  this proposed law is a way of catching them. Well, to be fair, he has a point there. I mean, for example,  does anybody remember the report of Planning Minister Camille Robinson Regis depositing some $143,000 in cash in a First Citizens Bank and there never being a satisfactory explanation given for that?  Was that transaction suspicious in your opinion? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so? Will the Honourable Attorney General explain where he and his wife, for example, found the money to buy a property in St. Clair which they are renting to the Government for some $23 million over the next three years? And if they inherited or were given that property is it reasonable to ask where the donor(s) of that very expensive property got the money in the first place? Is that suspicious in your view? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so?


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Would it be reasonable (using these two examples) to launch probes into these matters? If not, why not? And if so, why? Continuing the use of these two examples, what if there was a change of Government tomorrow morning and the new Attorney General uses his position from behind the scenes to have these two politicians have their property frozen?  Would you say that this was politically motivated? If so, why would you say so? If not, why not?


And although the Attorney General points to safeguards in the Bill whereby persons such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have to sign off on any application to freeze the assets does anybody believe that the DPP, for example,  is really politically impartial? If you do, then why do you believe that? If you don't, then why do you believe that? Certainly, from where I sit there are certain questions that make me wonder about the DPP. For example, why has the infamous emailgate affair not been brought to a conclusion? Why hasn't the matter involving the drugs at former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar's home been cleared up? There are other matters to which no clear and reasonable answers have been forthcoming from the DPP or his office. His signal failure to deal with these matters gives rise to most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed as to why he hasn't acted. And that's really the point. We have to be even more careful than the larger societies that our basic rights are not trampled upon because everybody knows everybody else.


The Bill is draconian. If you are accused your property can be frozen 'ex parte' , i.e., behind your back and without you getting any chance to say why this shouldn't happen. All of your assets are frozen! Full stop! And it is up to you to go and defend yourself. But (and here's the catch) if you hire a lawyer to defend you he has to be very careful that any monies that you use to pay his fees are free and clear, because if they are linked to you, his fees, that you have paid him to defend you, can be seized! Talk about a Catch 22! What lawyers do you know will want to do matters like this whereby simply for defending a client the lawyer can find himself being investigated and his assets being frozen as well?


So, you are put in the unenviable position of having your assets frozen ...and that includes your home, by the way ... and having no means to defend yourself (unless you have some wealthy relatives who love you very much) and having to fight the State with its comparatively unlimited resources. A really fair fight!


I am personally of the view that this proposed law will not be able to stand up in Court. But that will take years to be fought out and in the meantime a lot of mischief and expense can and will take place. That there is an abuse and that some people are getting away is readily admitted.  But the Bill as it stands is clearly an abomination. It sweeps up everybody ... not only the guilty. Our only real hope is that the nine Independent Senators vote against this Bill when it reaches the Senate. But it will only take one Independent senator for the Bill to pass! Will each and every one stand and vote against this Bill? Because you should know that they are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.

WHY ISN'T THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTING ON THE VEMEZUELAN CRISIS?

If ever there was a news story that affected not only Trinidad & Tobago but the entire Caribbean it is the extreme crisis taking place in Venezuela. As of today, the entire country has been without electricity for six long days. The supply of electricity since the crisis began last Thursday has been sporadic ... sometimes you get power but most of the time you don't. Foreign news reports say that up to now some twenty-four people have died of which six were infants.


But this crisis might as well be happening on the moon and not a few miles away, if you read the local newspapers or listen to the local radio and television stations. Oh, the papers do put a story on the crisis in their pages from time to time, but then they devote a lot more time and space to whether or not newly appointed Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith should be wearing a camouflage uniform or whether an Opposition politician was wrong to "fat shame" an admittedly large and overweight woman. It seems that the editors and managers of our local media believe that these type of stories are far more important than our neighbor literally falling apart.


No electricity has meant no water. No electricity has meant no gasoline for cars. No electricity has meant no refrigeration and food spoiling which means that people are going hungry. No electricity has meant no telephones, no cell phones, no internet, nothing. If you have an emergency you cannot call either the police or an ambulance! Think about it! No electricity has meant that the airports are shut down.  You can't leave the country even if you wanted to! No electricity has meant that the hospitals cannot function and that people are going to die. No electricity has meant that ATMs and credit cards can't work and the banks can't function. So, if you had all your cash in the bank six days ago you will be flat broke today. No electricity has meant that hungry people are resorting to looting. There is a complete breakdown of law and order. And no electricity has meant that there is no water!!


I could go on, but you get the point. This is a very serious crisis. And if you thought that we had a refugee crisis before this happened just wait for a little while  ... its going to get worse!!


So? Isn't this a serious news story? But you'd never guess this by reading the local newspapers or listening to the local radio or television stations. Why? I have my suspicions ... all of them as ugly as they ought to be unnecessary. And frankly, they are all related to the media's not so hidden support for the Rowley led Government. You see, any proper reporting of the crisis next door to us will by implication show how absolutely stupid and uncaring was the Government's rather obvious support for the Maburro regime and its so-called "neutrality" which wasn't neutral at all!!


But this story won't go away. And people will continue to die. And the editors and managers of our local media will continue to try and ignore it and pretend that they are politically neutral when they so obviously are not! And that's the real sin here!