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.