MRS. PERSAD-BISSESSAR WAS RIGHT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW ASSOCIATION WAS WRONG

 Has anybody noticed the apparent hypocrisy in the way that Dr. Rowley's Government deals with ethical matters?  Let me explain: nobody (except for a few people), including the Council of the Law Association (which body never bothered to consult its membership over the unfortunate behaviour of the Attorney General over his misleading, or trying to mislead a Judge in Miami) has seemed to think that it was all right for Mr. Armour to apparently "forget" that he had once represented Mr. Brian Kuei Tung in a matter that had to be one of the biggest cases of his entire career BUT when Mr. Armour's predecessor, Mr. Al Rawi, is reported in the Sunday express of 24th July as having said that he recused himself "in every case" in terms of clients whom he previously represented . Mr. Al Rawi  is reported in the same newspaper  as saying that "in accordance with the law and principles of good governance" he recused himself from time to time in Cabinet meetings.

Well, nobody can argue with that point although there are other matters that arise that can be discussed at another time concerning Mr. Al Rawi. The point here is that clearly Dr. Rowley knew or ought to have known that it is simply an extreme "no-no" for a lawyer to act even remotely in a matter against one of his former clients. And while it might be acceptable for a lawyer to say 'look, it was a small matter and I really don't remember all of the people that I acted for or gave advice to some 14 or 15 years ago, in the instant case it is simply unbelievable for Mr. Armour to say that he "forgot". And in the next breath, it is hypocritical of Dr. Rowley as Prime Minister not to call for Mr. Armour's resignation, especially given the Prime Minister's penchant for shouting about the lack of ethics on the UNC's side of the fence.

Apparently, "do so ent like so". And that can be the only reason for his deafening silence.

But then enter the Council of the Law Association who without consultation with its membership decides to issue a scathing rebuke of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's  commentary of Mr. Armour's behaviour  ignoring completely the rather terrible things that the Prime Minister has said in the past about those who support Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. In other words, no reasonable observer  could fail to come to the conclusion that the Council of the Law Association was quite happy to support those who "sang for their supper" when they supported Mr. Armour at the extraordinary general meeting of the Law Association (which fact, of course, raises other very serious questions about the ethics of the Council.)

 And yes, they did "sing for their supper". How else would you explain their support for a lawyer who lied to a Court  and pretended that he couldn't remember one of the biggest (if not the biggest) cases of his career? And remember how his story changed when the facts came out?  And that, my friends, is what you call lying. And that is why if you really believe that he didn't then I'd like to sell you a bridge.

But the Council of the Law Association thinks that the bigger sin is that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong to say publicly what any reasonable person would conclude: that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour were not motivated by ethics but by pure greed and self interest. But they don't say a d@#$%^& thing about when the Prime Minister attacks Opposition lawyers and they don't comment at all about the deceit or hypocrisy  of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. 

No. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was right in her criticisms and the Council of the Law Association was not only very, very wrong, but also so hypocritical in its criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition that it has lost all credibility. And this is not a good thing for Trinidad & Tobago.

"PRIME MINISTER KAMLA PERSAD-BISSESSAR SAID TODAY ..."

 

Okay. I had promised to say why I think that the UNC will win the next elections, so here goes: it is tempting to sum it up in one word - race - but that wouldn't explain all the nuances that are at play here. First of all, race is a factor; most Africans as well as Indians  - especially the uneducated ones - will vote according to their ethnicity. This is the main reason why in 1986 the then ruling PNM under George Chambers was able to garner almost 300 votes when it was clear that the overwhelming majority in the country had felt that the Chambers' Government had screwed things up so badly that they felt that they could take a chance with the new-born NAR. Put another way, both the UNC as well as the PNM have rock solid bases of approximately 30 percent each of the electorate. Of the remaining 40 percent about 30 percent lean one way or the other and we have only about 10 percent who are genuine "floaters".

And this is why most political observers believe that the situation will stay as it is with the very small minority of genuine floating voters leaning one way or the other depending on the performance and what their guts tell them about the two sides. The PNM has a psychological advantage in that for most of the floating voters it is regarded as the "default" party, in other words, where both sides are viewed as equally bad, the majority of the floating vote traditionally goes with the PNM. Certainly, this is what happened the last time in 2020. But because Dr. Rowley & Co. have been screwing up so badly in recent times, this is likely to change. Please note that the two most important words in that last sentence are "likely to" and one would be foolish to make a bet on this so early in the game. A lot can happen in the meantime that could make them swing one way or the other.

No. The real 'flea in the ointment' (or whatever the saying is) is Mr. Watson Duke's party, the PDP. Take a look at why I'm saying this: as things stand at the moment PNM has 21 of the 41 seats in the country; the UNC has 19 which is why it is in opposition. But Mr. Duke's party looks set to win the 2 Tobago seats in the next election, which will bring the PNM down to 19. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's UNC is likely to hold on its 19 seats. So? Why am I saying that UNC will win? These numbers would suggest a minority government.

Because Mr. Duke has signaled that he intends to come to Trinidad as well as staying in Tobago. If he does come where do you think that he will get his votes from? Aaaahhh! You got it! He'll by and large get his votes from the poorer or lower class Africans  - the PNM's traditional base. The UNC's traditional base will not move in favour of another black party. So? What do you think will happen in marginal seats like Barataria or St. Augustine for example? The PDP will more than likely take enough votes from the PNM that will cause the UNC in our first pass the post system to romp home to victory even if the combined votes of the PNM and the PDP are greater than the UNC's in the particular constituency. Mr. Duke is most unlikely to pick up any disaffected UNC voters.

And so folks, if (and it's always a big "if" this far off the date for the next elections) things stay more or less the same, the lead story on television the next time around after the elections will likely begin with the words "Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said today ...".

GREED AND SELF-PRESERVATION

 

While most right thinking citizens would be surprised by the mental gymnastics that the lawyers who voted against the resolution to criticize the Attorney General for his part in  a case in far away Miami, for  a minority of observers the outcome was most predictable and could be summed up in three words: "Greed and Self-Preservation".

You see, like everybody else lawyers have seen their business shrink with the Covid 19 pandemic. For some, the shrinkage of their business has been so bad that they have been forced to close down their offices and work instead from home. And as for the rest, there is hardly anybody who hasn't seen his/her business shrink, often to unacceptable levels. But (and as usual there is always a "but") there are a fortunate few who get regular briefs from the one client who always has money and who never (or hardly ever) complains about the size of the bill: the Government. And guess who hands out these rather lucrative briefs ... and your first two guesses don't count! Aaah! You got that right! It's the Attorney General!

And do you think that any Attorney General would give any work to any lawyer who spoke out against him? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. You see, it was always a given that the present Attorney General would not resign. The Prime Minister had already signaled that he wouldn't accept any proffered resignation, so short of a general election (which ain't on the cards at the moment) it means that voting against Mr. Armour would mean that you were potentially cutting yourself off from any potential briefs that could come your way.

Of course, those implacably opposed to the PNM Government will point out that out of a membership of some ten thousand only a little over five hundred turned out and  that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour numbered less than three percent of the membership. And those who support the PNM will say that the ten thousand who didn't vote could have and should have.  And they'd both be right. But they both would drift away from the central point with these rather esoteric arguments. The central point was that every single person who voted for Mr. Armour and against the resolution did so for personal reasons. Oh! The less honest ones will deny it and present all sorts of arguments to prove that they acted on the highest principles. Some will even say that they don't get Government briefs. but none would say that they would turn down a Government brief if one happened to come their way.

And as for those who voted against Mr. Armour? They were right to do so, of course, even though being right was secondary to the knowledge that they would never get a Government brief, at least not under this Government. In any case, as the old Trinidadian saying goes: 'time longer than time' and a general election is due in about two years, so they can wait. And as things stand right now today (and a week is certainly a long time in politics so things can change) the UNC will win the next election. Why do I say that? Watch this space and I'll tell you another time.

AN ELASTIC APPROACH TO ETHICS

 So Dr. Rowley is back in the country and is operating as if his 3 week absence was no big thing and does not merit more than a line ("I was undergoing medical tests") of explanation. There was no report on his medical condition that necessitated a three week sojourn nor was there any attempt to say why these "tests" could not have been done in Trinidad. And a Prime Minister is no ordinary person. The country is entitled to know exactly what is or was wrong with him and what exactly caused his long absence.

In the meantime, and while he was away, it was revealed that one of his ministers was prevented from getting his Master's degree because he (Foster Cummings) had plagiarized certain content in his thesis. Mr. Cummings has said that this was simply an "oversight" on his part and that he had already explained that. But the fact is that he was still denied his degree and plagiarism is just about the most serious offence that one can commit in the academic world.  

Then (again while the Prime Minister was abroad) his brand new Attorney General is prevented from acting for and on behalf of the country in a case in the United States because he had acted for one of the defendants in a related matter some 14 or so years ago. The Attorney General offers as reasons that he did so was because he couldn't remember (although this had to be one of the biggest cases of his career) and he was abroad on holiday and didn't have his files with him and that he was prevented from filing an explanatory affidavit in the matter even though the Court records do not show that there was any explanation or attempt to file a supplemental/explanatory affidavit. An appeal has been filed, but one gets the most regrettable impression that this appeal is a losing one. But, we'll see.

Then there is the problem of abuse in children's homes across the country. This is being  (and has been for months) "investigated", but nobody has been charged as yet much less fired. And the PM's silence on this is deafening.

Then there is the problem of the investigation into the deaths of those divers at the beginning of this year. So far nothing has happened and there has been no explanation except that we are being told that the commission of enquiry will begin "soon". How soon is "soon" is, of course, another question altogether.

I could go on, but surely you the point: there seems to be in all of these matters (and more) a common thread which is a most elastic approach to ethics. The Prime Minister refuses to answer a journalist because of a 14 or 15 year old report and will not answer the reasonable question as to whether or not he had done due diligence on Mr. Armour which ought to have raised Mr. Armour's potential conflict of interest.

It is as though Dr. Rowley's ethics are governed by "do as I say, not as I do". If this is true then we have a serious problem because it would mean that the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago is a big hypocrite. In the first world he would be fired for his most elastic approach to ethics.