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?