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.