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.