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.
No comments:
Post a Comment