Just when you think that the politicians can't get any lower, they conspire to prove you wrong - again. Let's look at the mess of that debate that never was - the one dealing with the removal of the President. And don't worry, I'm not going to quote law at you or this or that section of the Constitution or the difference between a procedural motion or another type of motion. Nor am I going to give a 'learned' opinion on what the law says or what is the correct way to interpret it.
No. I'm just going to look at the whole mess and see if it could have been handled in another way.
In order to do that we need to start from the beginning. (I was always taught that if you want to understand a problem you always need to go back to the beginning.) Everybody seems to agree that the trouble started about a year ago when the Prime Minister (Rowley) let it be known that he had 'lost faith' in the Commissioner of Police (Griffith). There were a lot of harsh words said in public passing between the two men, but it all seemed to die down and the country more or less went back to normal.
But CoP Griffith's term was ending this year (I can't remember exactly when, but I think it was around August). In any case, although the CoP's term was ending, the Police Service Commission (PolSC) did nothing to start the process moving to re-appoint either Mr. Griffith or to appoint somebody else until very late in the day. And here is where it starts to get messy:
The PolSC sent a letter to the President with three nominees for the CoP post. Now, under the Constitution the President in this case has no discretion but MUST simply forward the letter to Parliament. But before the letter is forwarded by the President to the Parliament she rather inexplicably returns it to the PolSC and effectively tells the Commission to think again. Here it becomes more than a little murky, but rumours start almost immediately that a 'high level public official' went to see the President and told her NOT to send the list to the Parliament. Incidentally, we don't know whose names were on the list but rumour hath it that Mr. Griffith's name was one of the three. We also don't know who the 'high level public official' was but the rumour is that it was no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. But neither the Prime Minister nor the President is talking so we may never know. The most that the Prime Minister has said is that he talks to the President about lots of things lots of times - which ain't exactly an admission of anything. Why he wouldn't come out and say 'it was me' or 'it was not me' is a question that is left just hanging there. Of course, those who don't like the Prime Minister are saying that he won't say because he knows that he was wrong to interfere. Those who do like him simply dismiss it and say that it isn't relevant.
But the President rather curiously says that she returned the letter from the PolSC but doesn't say who asked her to return it or whether the request was in writing - to which any thinking person can only say 'hmmmmm'! Why would she ( a lawyer and a former Court of Appeal Judge) do something like that that is so clearly unconstitutional? In any case, who was this 'high level public official'? Was it in fact the Prime Minister? You see why it gets murky.
Then the Leader of the Opposition files a motion in the Parliament essentially asking the Parliament to remove the President from her office. That this motion was likely to be defeated was clear from the outset, but that was never the point. Enter the erstwhile Speaker of the House who takes it upon herself (for reasons that could make lawyers rich by arguing them all the way to the Privy Council) to order that there was to be no debate on the motion.
What exactly would have been the harm in having the highest forum in the land debating the motion was never explained. All we were told was that the Speaker had decided that this was the right way to go and that she was banning all debate. "Vote and Go", was one headline in a daily newspaper.
Nobody has bothered to explain exactly why a debate on this issue should not have been allowed. The answer to this question is hidden under a deadweight of legalese that would be the kind of stuff that late night comedians love to sink their teeth into. So what? let us assume (but not accept) that the Speaker's decision not to allow debate was right in law, was it right for the country? We tend to speak about the Presidency in hushed, almost reverential tones that are oddly reminiscent of the 'good old days' when any criticism of the Governor or the King was considered treasonous. But the defenders of the President essentially argue that there are two rules concerning the President: Rule One is that the president is never wrong; Rule Two is that when the President is wrong, refer back to Rule One.
We should have had a debate - even if there is legal authority to say 'no'. The Speaker was wrong not to do so. And let's face it, the Opposition mishandled the whole imbroglio from start to finish. They could have, and should have, gone through all the possible scenarios and been prepared for whatever the Speaker threw their way. . But their reaction suggests that they were taken by surprise. The motion could have and should have been better drafted. The Speaker has badly damaged the appearance of independence so necessary for one in her position. And the Prime Minister has come across as someone who is quite comfortable with obfuscatory comments that tend to hide the truth more than letting the people know exactly what was happening or had happened. Finally, the President has also badly damaged her Presidency by her actions as well as her rather pathetic attempts at covering up.
Put another way, none of the main players in this little 'play' have come out of this unscathed. They all stink - some more than others.
No comments:
Post a Comment