DICTATORSHIP ANYONE?

Looking at the present political landscape in Trinidad & Tobago many people have expressed the fear that we are heading the same way as Venezuela did under Chavez and Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) and we soon will be under the crushing heels of untrammeled dictatorship. Certainly, there are rather disturbing signs that this may be so. For example, the recent Judgement concerning Brent Thomas who was arrested in Barbados and brought back to Trinidad without a warrant of extradition and the rather strange defence being put out in the public space that he was involved in rather nefarious criminal activities as justification for this action although no evidence was ever led in Court about these alleged "criminal activities". Whatever happened to the old adage: it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang?

 Then there is the rather blatant attempt to interfere with the democratic process by postponing local government elections for more than a year and (so far) refusing to acknowledge that the matter has been dealt with by the country's highest court and that should be the end of that. Instead we have had no less than the country's Attorney General saying in effect that the Government was not wrong because five judges agreed with him (the AG). It didn't matter that the system dictates that the decision of the highest court is the one that counts. Instead it seems that the decision of the highest court is only valid when the Government agrees with the verdict! And the list goes on.

But the question is: are we on the road to a dictatorship? And the answer is that there are certain signs that we are indeed heading in that direction. There are still some judges who fiercely fight for their independence, but certain judgements falling from certain judges are not only clearly wrong, but carry with them the appearance of being heavily biased towards one side or the other.  It is becoming so that one can almost predict which way a decision on a constitutional matter will go until it reaches the Privy Council. And whether it is true or not some judicial decisions seem more to be based on race than on law, at least, that is the perception. And in politics perception is reality.

And if that wasn't bad enough we are witnessing the death of truly independent journalism. Independent journalism insists on showing us what we learn - fully and fairly - regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process uncertainty for themselves. Somebody once said comment is free but facts are sacred. And we get a lot of comment masquerading as fact from our newspapers.  But a free and independent press is an absolute requirement for a democracy.

Put another way, if we are indeed heading towards a dictatorship like Venezuela then the newspapers are helping greatly in that regard. They are neither truthful nor neutral. Drawing false moral or factual equivalence is neither objective nor truthful. You can also ask (if you think that Maburro is such a great leader or that a dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing) why has approximately one third of Venezuela's population of some thirty million people fled that unfortunate country. 

AWARDING SILK

 A big thing in the newspapers this morning has to do with the awarding of the title 'senior counsel' to a group of 18 lawyers, which group includes both the President's brother and her husband. The title of 'senior counsel' is meant to be a recognition that the lawyer who receives 'silk' (as it is sometimes called because the robes that lawyers wear in Court are made of cotton, but the robes of senior counsel are supposed to be made of silk) and entitles the lawyer to charge more for his/her fees.

Let me deal with the nepotism charges first: I don't know the President's brother, Collin Kangaloo, but I have had a professional acquaintance with her husband, Kerwyn Garcia. In my opinion Mr. Garcia is a good lawyer and deserving of the title 'senior counsel'; I don't know the President's brother at all and therefore cannot comment fairly on his abilities as a lawyer or lack thereof. But I do know the Kangaloo family from San Fernando and although I don't agree generally with their politics I do believe that they are honourable people. And if a senior counsel is supposed to be honourable then certainly on this score Mr. Kangaloo qualifies.

The problem comes in because of their relationship with or to the President of Trinidad& Tobago. There is a not unreasonable perception that their being awarded silk has something to do with their relationship with her. That this perception is most unfair to the goodly gentlemen is a given. They shouldn't have to turn down an award just because of birth or a marriage that took place a long time ago. And yet the perception lingers whether it is fair or not or true or not. And in the world of politics perception is reality.

The problem really comes in because (despite how some might choose to dress it up) the fact is that there is only one person who really appoints silk - and that is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. If he/she decides that a person should or shouldn't be awarded with the accolade then that person will (or will not) get it. Full stop! So nobody can get silk if the Prime Minister says 'no'. And anybody can get silk if the Prime Minister wants that person to get the award. And no explanations need to be given.

In other Commonwealth countries they have dealt with this by removing the politicians from the process and having the appointment being made by a non political committee (appointed either directly or indirectly by the politicians - but at least they recognize the problem).

I tend to prefer the American system where a lawyer's worth is measured by his/her reputation and nothing else. The Americans have even done away with the anachronistic and colonial robes that our lawyers have to wear. Let's face it: there are some silks who have done nothing in their legal careers to get this award and there are others, who because they have offended a Prime Minister whether deliberately or not, will never get it. The reputations of these attorneys are irrelevant. Put another way, the appointment of senior counsel is heavily tied into politics. Oh! Sometimes a lawyer from the Opposition might be appointed if only so that a Prime Minister can pretend that he/she is not politically biased. but when last did you see a prominent  Opposition lawyer being appointed as a senior counsel?

Let me put it another way: ALL judges in our jurisdiction are lawyers. I am not aware that any of them have ever been awarded the title of senior counsel. But is it right that a person who is a senior counsel should have to bow before a person who is not? In other words, you are smart enough to be a judge and sit in judgement but you are not good enough to be a silk! What's wrong with this picture? If you are good enough to be made a judge surely you are good enough to be made a senior counsel?

But when that happened a few years ago with no less a person than the present Chief Justice there was a hue and cry resulting in the Chief Justice returning the award!

Then again, the head of the country's Bar is the Attorney General. If a lawyer is good enough to be the Attorney General surely he/she is good enough to be made silk on his/her accession to office. Actually, I think that any person who becomes Attorney General should automatically take silk. But when that happened with Mr. Anand Ramlogan  a big fuss was made. (The fact that Mr. Ramlogan has since demitting office proven time and again that he definitely is senior counsel material has been rather conveniently ignored by his former critics.) Let me put it to you this way: the first row of desks in an open Court is specifically reserved for senior counsel. You aren't supposed to sit there if you are not silk. So if you are the Attorney General of the country and therefore head of the Bar but you don't have silk you can't sit in the first row even though you are head of the Bar! But a person that YOU helped to be made a silk yesterday can sit in the first row and you have to sit behind him/her.

It is time that we cut the remaining ties to our former colonial masters and become truly independent. We should stop trying to mimic them and to act like pseudo Englishmen. We are not. We are Trinbagonians and should be proud of who we are. I agree that we should stand and bow to the judge when he/she walks into the Court. That is not only good manners but respect that the office deserves. I don't agree with calling judges "my lord" or "my lady" and prefer the American "your honour". But I'm going off topic here.  Left to me I would abolish the title of 'senior counsel' or 'silk'. It adds nothing to the justice system and sometimes even causes divisions where there ought to be none. And sometimes it can even cause unintended damage to a person's reputation.

THE BRENT THOMAS AFFAIR

 This whole affair raises more questions than answers - which, I suppose, is par for the course. The first question is how could the police effectively commandeer a coast guard plane WITHOUT anybody in the National Security Council, which is headed by the Prime Minister and whose members INCLUDE both the Minister of National Security (NSC)  AND the Attorney General, knowing about it? Assuming that the reports in the newspapers are correct, neither the Attorney General nor the Minister of National Security knew about this matter. We haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knew about it. Indeed, it would be very, very worrying if he didn't for reasons that ought to be obvious. He is the head of the NSC, for crying out loud!

But, assuming that he joins with his two Ministers on the NSC and says that he too knew nothing about it, then we have a serious problem. It would mean that somebody in the National Security apparatus is operating outside of his/her legal authority. It would mean that the NSC, the ultimate authority for the defence of the Republic, can plot a coup and the NSC would never know about it until it was too late. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister didn't know about it ... and yet here we are with two members of the NSC saying that they had no idea that a Trinidad &Tobago aircraft had been dispatched to Barbados to collect an alleged fugitive and there is/was no Court Order or other authority given by anyone who should have known about this, as having a clue as to what was going on.

As if that wasn't serious enough, we haven't been told why Mr. Thomas was targeted in this fashion. Was it because somebody high up had a grudge against him? Was it because there was (or is) some kind of evidence that for security reasons hasn't been produced? If so, what kind of evidence? And why was the Judge not told about this in camera?

Then we have the rather unusual statement from the Attorney General of Barbados that he knew nothing about it. But, we haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister of Barbados. Did she know something about it? If so, that could be an explanation for her rather curious silence as she might not want to embarrass her Trinidad counterpart. But if so, then it would mean that the Trinis are lying. Why are they lying (if indeed they are)?

Look, this whole affair raises more questions than answers. A national of Trinidad & Tobago is arrested and held by Barbadian police, presumably at the request of the Trinidadian police. There is no Court Order either from Barbados or Trinidad authorizing the detention and extradition of the Trinidadian and when the Trinidadian sues in the Trinidadian Court for his arrest, extradition and detention there is absolutely no credible defence proffered on the part of any person in authority. All we have got so far is "Not me! I didn't even know about it!" So? Who does? Or, who did?

This matter is dangerous and the issues that it raise need to be fully ventilated. To just let it pass without the story coming out does not augur well for anybody, much less our democracy.