R.I.P.

Yesterday's Sunday Guardian had a most interesting editorial on crime. In it the editorial writer pointed out that some 4,525 people had been murdered since 2010. The statistic was not quoted as to how many of those murders have been solved with the perpetrators being brought to justice, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the percentage is very small.

What a lot of people who have not suffered the misfortune of losing a loved one in this dastardly way (i.e., murder) is how badly a murder affects those left behind. First of all, when you get the news you feel absolutely numb. It's almost too much to digest and you don't know what to do. You feel lost and filled with a feeling that 'this can't be happening'.  Then, when the news eventually sinks in and you cry, the crying does not relieve that dreadful sense of loss that you feel.

A little later, you begin to make enquiries as to exactly how it happened. Did my loved one suffer? You will want to know. In this regard, it is probably a little easier (maybe about one percent) if your loved one was murdered accidentally, for example, if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, than if, for example, she was kidnapped, raped and strangled. But quite honestly, whether it was an "accidental" murder or a deliberate one, death is still death and murder is so sudden and unexpected that it is still a serious shock to one's system.

Then you will begin to pester the police. What are they doing? Unfortunately, nine times out of ten the answer to that question will be sweet nothing ... either through sheer incompetence or corruption or a combination of both! This will infuriate you, especially when you have delved deep into the murder and you will have discovered exactly who the murderer is and why he committed the crime. But then you will have a problem: the first one will be that while you know exactly who did it and why, you can't prove it, i.e., you will not have any evidence that can stand up in a court. Let me put it to you like this: I was at your house at midnight last night. You know I was there. But I am going to lie and say that I wasn't. Now, you prove that I was there! Difficult, eh? It will be your word against mine!

In addition you might be scared out of your wits because you know that the police will not protect you if you 'rat' on the murderer.

So, he walks scot free! And you are left with nothing but the pain!

Everybody has a loved one ... even if it's 'only' a mother. Usually there will be at least two (if not more) persons who are adversly affected by the violent death. And, you know what? You never get over it! Twenty-three years ago today my cousin, whom I loved like a brother was brutally murdered by a drug lord. Everybody knows who did it, but the police covered it up and it has been lost and forgotten ... except by his family! And that is so sad!

DO WE REALLY WANT TO FIX CRIME?

Crime remains a huge problem in our little country. That there are solutions ... most of them unacceptable in any society that claims to adhere to democratic principles ... is almost beside the point. The point is that the present Government seems to be unable or unwilling (or both) to do anything about this horrible blight that we all have to live with. It was just a little more than four years ago when Keith Rowley, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, boasted that the PNM had a plan that would fix the problem. And the country bought into his claims and made him the Prime Minister.

Now, years later, crime has not decreased but the statistics show that it has done the opposite. Rumours abound that high level PNM Government Ministers are themselves associated with gangsters and although there have been attempts to paint leading opposition figures with the same brush, most of those accusations have fallen on the stony ground of public indifference; none of them have been proved and in any case, those opposition guys are not in power. (I suppose that this might become an issue when the elections are finally called but for now, it really is a non-issue.)

But what is alarming is that not only are the accusations against certain Government Ministers being completely ignored, but there seems to be a concerted effort by the powers-that-be to prevent any real discussion of same coming out. Last week's abrupt adjournment of the joint select committee (JSC) meeting being chaired by Minister Fitzgerald Hinds have led to many ugly and most unnecessary suspicions being directed against the erstwhile chairman that are probably better left unexpressed at this time. But (and it is a huge "but") that doesn't mean that people aren't talking about it and openly accusing the Government of protecting their own.  Put another way, people have formed their own opinions and what they are saying privately is awful.

It is not in the best interests of our society that rumours like this be allowed to flourish. They must be put to rest one way or the other, either by proving that they are absolutely not true or by proving that they are true and arresting and charging the perpetrators.

Let me put it this way by asking you some straight questions:
(1)  Do you believe that there are politicians involved with gangsters?
(2)  If so, do you believe that these politicians come from both parties or only one party?
(3)  If you believe that they come from both parties do you believe that the Government is trying to cover up the involvement of their people?

The questions do not require comment. They are straight 'yes' or 'no' questions. You realize that your answers to yourself will do several things. Firstly, your answers will show whether or not you really have the country's interests at heart or whether you are so hopelessly and helplessly biased that you cannot possibly be regarded as a fair-minded person. Secondly, your answers will show whether or not you are willing to close your eyes to criminal activities if those activities are being committed by the political party that you support.

So? Do you still believe that we can fix this crime problem?

OF DUCKS AND PUSSY CATS

The erstwhile leader of the People's Empowerment Party, Phillip Edward Alexander, and blogger Suzette Louwe, have both been asking some serious questions of UDECOTT about the cost of repairing both President's House (which was reported to cost some $89 million) and the Red House (which was reported to cost some $500 million).  UDECOTT has stonewalled their queries and have apparently threatened to sue Mr. Alexander whose posts on the subject do raise some serious questions as well as some very ugly suspicions.

Now, let's get something straight: repairs to an old property always cost more than if you were to knock down the old building and start afresh with a brand new one. Indeed, to my great chagrin I found this out the hard way when I bought an old house and have spent much more on repairing it than I would have if I had simply knocked it down and rebuilt a brand new house. But, you live and learn and that (for me) is water under the bridge.

My point is that I didn't really agree with either Ms. Louwe or Mr. Alexander that the reported costs of repairing both properties were exorbitant. On the other hand, the fact that UDECOTT has so steadfastly refused to be transparent about how the amount of  monies to repair the properties  were  arrived at  raised alarm bells in my mind. I mean, this is public money that was spent ... and it wasn't some small amount either! In the case of the Red House we are talking about  a half a billion dollars!! And this is at a time when we are in a very serious financial predicament!

It is my view that there is absolutely no good reason for UDECOTT to be silent on this matter and that the state enterprise should answer ALL the questions that both Mr. Alexander and Ms. Louwe have raised ... even if some might consider some of the questions frivolous.  If there was overspending we should know about it. But the truth is that there is another rather sinister aspect to all of this; the obvious reluctance of UDECOTT to be open and upfront can lead the reasonable person to conclude that UDECOTT is hiding something. And if the state enterprise is hiding something what is a reasonable deduction as to what they might be hiding if not some sort of  corruption?

Without the information being given to Ms. Louwe and Mr. Alexander it is impossible to say definitively that there is corruption. But the seeming reluctance to be open about the requested information can and does lead to very ugly and what ought to be most unnecessary suspicions that there is/was some sort of corruption being covered up. After all, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is most unreasonable to call it a pussy cat!

                                                 IS CAMILLE BELIEVABLE?


Okay. It's not only a new year but it is an election year. Before the end of this year there will be a general election in Trinidad & Tobago and a Presidential election in the United States.  For most people in the world the American election is obviously the more important and even down here there will be a lot of attention paid to everything that is going on in the world's most important super power. But, regardless of what happens up north the looming general elections in good old T&T will be uppermost in the minds of our citizenry.

And there is a lot to digest what with everything that has happened in the last four years; what with the closure of Petrotrin, the demonetization of the old one hundred dollar bills, the question of whether the police were right to descend upon an old lady who publicized a secretly recorded conversation with a sitting Member of Parliament that showed that the erstwhile MP was deliberatly refusing Government assistance to a citizen based on that citizen's alleged political support for the opposition UNC, the out of control crime situation, the collapsing health care system and the firing of a foreign doctor who publicised the terrible conditions in the San Fernando General Hospital, the flooding in South Trinidad and the apparent lack of any real response to the woes of thousands of citizens as a result, and the list goes on.

But what is more than interesting is the question of what exactly happened with the erstwhile former Minister of Planning, Camille Robinson-Regis when she deposited some $143,000 in cash and said that it came from another bank account. Unfortunately for the goodly Minister, the reports in the newspapers suggest that the monies did NOT come from the bank account that she said that it came from. Added to the mix is a statement from the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago when he said some two years ago that HE saw a letter from Republic Bank which said that the $143,000 in cash came from that bank.  Unfortunately, to date that alleged letter has not been produced.

The Express newspaper has published a report that raises some pretty serious questions over this whole affair. Mrs. Robinson-Regis has responded by effectively saying that she has done nothing wrong and that all of her critics, and especially the Express, can go to that proverbial hot place ruled by the Devil and not pass 'Go' or collect $200 while on their way!

I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then the odds of it being a pussycat are slim indeed.  And Mrs. Robinson-Regis should be aware that very ugly (and what should be most unnecessary) suspicions are being raised by her reluctance and seeming refusal to explain clearly her source of funds. The fact that the Prime Minister as well as the Attorney General have stood by her non-explanations hasn't helped the public perception that something is not right.  In fact, the public pronouncements of Dr. Rowley have only served to deepen the suspicion that there is some sort of cover up going on.

Look, Mrs. Robinson-Regis may very well have done nothing wrong and there may be a very simple explanation for where these monies came from. And this $143,000 may very well be entirely legitimate. But to date there hasn't been any good explanation of where the money came from. And that's the problem! Why can't we get an explanation? So? My questions to you are: in all of this do you think that Camille is believable? Do you think that she has done nothing wrong? Do you think that this matter is a relatively simple one and should have been brought to a conclusion one way or the other some time ago? Or do you think that there is something there that needs a proper explanation? Conversely, do you think that there is nothing there?

THE RETURNING MEMBERS OF ISLAMIC STATE

The New York Times is reporting this morning that Turkey is holding 2,280 Islamic State members from 30 nations and that all of them will be deported. It's a good bet that there will be more than one or two Trinis in that group (as well as elsewhere) which means that they will be here sooner or later.


But here's the problem: regardless of what these people will say, what are the odds that they have been de-radicalized? Put another way, it is a fair bet that many of these Islamic State members (women as well as men) have received training in terrorist activities and (perhaps more importantly) how to conduct warfare ... especially guerilla warfare.


So? What's the problem, you ask? Well, we know that we have a great many guns ... a lot of real guns, such as AK 47's and semi automatic rifles coming into the country. And a lot means A LOT!!  We also know that we have a very serious gang problem with God knows how many gang members floating around with access to this heavy weaponry. So, if these ISIS members come back home to good old T&T with the specialized training that they have received what do you think the chances are that they will gravitate towards one or the other of these gangs and start to train them in the art of warfare? Such training is not exactly available right now to these gangs ... or at least, I don't think that it is. And when they (the gangs) receive such training what do you think will happen with our already out of control crime situation? And when the ISIS people  come back home how many do you think will or are going to fit right back into society as if they had never left and will get jobs and settle down quietly forever and ever, amen? (I agree with you: not a lot!)


What can be done? Well, the simplest answer is to strip anybody who has joined any terrorist organization of his/her TT citizenship and prevent him/her from ever returning home. But this approach has a large number of rather obvious legal as well as ethical problems and I'm not certain that this would be the right solution. Another approach might be to detain everybody and anybody who went away to join Islamic State and to subject them to what can be euphemistically referred to as "re-education." Again, this is not exactly a good solution and it raises some rather obvious legal and ethical problems.


It is a truism that there is always a solution to every problem. The trouble is that very often the solutions are worse than the problems themselves. Frankly, I really don't know what would be best for our society as regards these ISIS people and how we should handle them. But I do know that their return represents a real threat to our society and that one way or the other we are going to have to deal with it. It is better that  we start to discuss this problem now rather than wait until it is upon us.


For me, this is more important right now than a lot of the platform rhetoric that we are getting about 'who t'ief what' or 'who is de bigger t'ief'. Not that those questions aren't important, but the threat to the safety and security of our little republic is very real and is not something that most of us are bothering to think about.

THE BENEFIT TO T&T OF BEING FRIENDLY WITH MADURO

The internet news site MSN is today reporting that the Government of the United States is accusing President Nicholas Maduro of enriching himself by working with criminal gangs, organized crime and terror groups. The commander of the US Southern Command based in Miami, Admiral Craig Faller is reported as saying "We're seeing an increase in drug trafficking placed out of Venezuela that is aided and abetted by the illegitimate Maduro regime.In fact, the Maduro regime has a negative impact on every single security aspect in this hemisphere. All the challenges are made worse by the Venezuelan crisis." He went on to say that the Maduro Government is getting rich through drug trafficking! "There's over a 50 percent increase of narcotrafficking in and through Venezuela, and Maduro and his cronies are lining their pockets, in cahoots with the illicit narcotrafficking," Faller said.


Okay. This is hardly news to many who believe that this has been going on for some time. But a serious charge, such as this, ought to make those currently in charge of Trinidad & Tobago's own security sit up and take notice ... especially when it comes from such a high ranking source. You see, the Rowley regime has not only continued to recognize the Maburro regime ... I'm sorry, I mean the Maduro regime ... but continues to do business with it. And in the meantime our own crime rate in T&T seems to be soaring through the roof. Everybody (and I mean everybody) knows someone who has either personally been a victim of a crime or who has had a family member, robbed, raped or murdered! That is an alarming fact! And we all know that a lot of "small" crimes simply aren't being reported because the police simply do not do anything about them. Sad, eh?


I have a client who runs a marina in Chagaramus. He tells me that assault rifles and very high powered weaponry is coming across the Gulf of Paria from Venezuela in small boats almost every day! And, he says, they are coming across in crates!! Crates!!


But while our crime rate spirals out of control our Government continues to do business with the Venezuelan Donkey who is nothing if not a thug and a terrible crook! Why?  There is an old saying about 'show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are'. So I say to Messrs. Rowley, Moses, Young et al, exactly who are YOUR friends? And why are we still doing business with Maburro? (And don't tell me because he is the legitimate leader of Venezuela when we all know that he is not. He is an illegal dictator.) Is he your friend? What benefit exactly are we getting from being friendly with this crook? There are many more questions, but if at least we could get an answer to what is listed here we might be better able to understand why it is in our interests to support this thug!


P.S. And to the Donkey, I challenge you to sue me for defamation in the Trinidad Courts of law for calling you a crook, etc. . May I remind you that if you do, you will have to submit yourself to cross-examination and that the truth is an absolute defence!  So come, if your name is man!!

DARYL SMITH 101

Okay. I get it. A lot of people are totally confused about what can euphemistically be referred to as "the Daryl Smith affair". I don't blame them. there have been so many charges and counter charges and claims of cover-up that it is practically impossible to understand what exactly is going on. One can be forgiven for thinking that the Government's playbook in this matter is being taken from the old line "if you can't baffle them with your brilliance, then bamboozle them with B.S." (and by the way, my old history teacher in high school once told me ... and teachers never lie ... that 'B.S.' stands for 'Baloney for Sure'! NOT what you are thinking!!). So perhaps it is time that we go back to the beginning and look at the so-called "facts" that are in the public domain:


Fact 1: A fairly good looking young woman called Carrie Ann Moreau was hired by the then Minister of Sport in some sort of capacity that required her to be in constant and close contact with the Minister. The Minister was Daryl Smith. Exactly what her duties were supposed to be at the Ministry of Sport is not clear. I think that she was to be some sort of assistant to the Minister, but I'm not sure of this nor of exactly what her duties were supposed to be.


Fact 2: Shortly after she joined the Minister's team there was some sort of inter action between the two. The allegation that is in the public domain is that the Minister made some sort of sexual advance to the young lady which made her very uncomfortable and was in fact rejected by her.


Fact 3: Following such rejection she found it impossible to continue with her employment and took her substantive employer, who was the Ministry of Sport, to the Industrial Court and was asking for $225,000 in damages  for wrongful dismissal.


Fact 4: The Ministry of Sport engaged the services of the Prime Minister's personal attorney, Mr. Michael Quamina, to defend the matter.


Fact 5:  Mr. Quamina advised that the case would be lost and advised a settlement.


Fact 6: A settlement figure of $150,000 was arrived at and a settlement agreement was signed between the parties (i.e., Ms. Moreau and the Ministry of Sport) and the money was paid to the young lady. We don't know whether this sum included her legal bill but it probably did.  We don't know of any other monies paid to or for her. Certainly, we don't know what the legal bill was for the Ministry of Sport in this matter. In other words, the cost to the taxpayers could easily be more than the $150,000 ... but how much more, we simply don't know.




Fact 7: The settlement agreement contained a nondisclosure clause forbidding/preventing Ms. Moreau from discussing any aspect of the case. In other words, the existence of this clause effectively prevents the general public from knowing why $150,000 of the public's money was used to settle this case or even why it had to be paid. Put another way, we simply have no facts to go on to find out why the taxpayers had to foot a $150,000 bill that may or may not have been caused in the first place by the misbehavior of the Minister.


Fact 8: All the monies paid to Ms. Moreau (i.e., the $150,000) were public monies. None came out of the Minister's pocket.


Fact 9: The Prime Minister commissioned a report on the whole matter but says that he can't disclose the findings of the report because certain legal formalities were not observed. The claim is that the committee appointed to investigate did not interview the Minister or give him a chance to be heard. The Attorney General has backed up the Prime Minister on this.


Fact 10: Meanwhile the lawyer for Daryl Smith has jumped in and called for the destruction of the report. She also says that reconvening the committee would be a waste of time because the committee is clearly biased against her client having made adverse findings against him. (How she knows that the findings are adverse is not exactly clear.)


Fact 11: Nobody has considered this matter to be important enough to deal with this matter definitively by simply appointing another committee with a remit to investigate the matter and come up with a proper report within a limited period of time ... say, two weeks. Instead, the confusion is allowed to continue and the central issue of what exactly happened and why was it in the Government's interest to have a non-disclosure agreement for the payment of public funds?


So? Where are we? Exactly where we were at the very beginning before all of the above came to light: bamboozled by the B.S. (Baloney for Sure). And we must like it so because there is no public outcry. But then, I guess that's why God is a Trini!

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?

THE ROWLEY CONUNDRUM

 In both today's Guardian and Express the headlines deal with Prime Minister Rowley's rather surprising disclosure in the House of Representatives that former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar had told former minister Marlene McDonald about a month before it happened that she was going to be arrested. One if the newspapers reported that Ms. McDonald did ask the former Prime Minister what was she going to be arrested for, but was just told to "watch" herself (or words to that effect). Clearly, Dr. Rowley was giving this information to the House and the country in an effort to paint Mrs. Persad Bissessar in a bad light.


But (and it is a big "but") the erstwhile Dr. Rowley has inadvertently created a serious problem for himself. You see, he is on record as saying that he knew nothing about Ms. McDonald's impending arrest until after it happened. Is this true? Because if it is not then that means that he has lied about it. But if it is true then the question must arise as to how the PRESENT head of the National Security Council didn't know about it but how the FORMER head of the National Security Council did?


It is not unexpected that former Prime Ministers and Presidents around the world will have their contacts in the national security apparatus and have access to information that we ordinary mortals would not have. But what is expected is that the current holders of those high offices would have better current information than their predecessors. And if they don't, then that would be a very serious matter, indeed!


Look: it is either that Dr. Rowley did know about Ms. McDonald's arrest in advance or he didn't. It would be surprising if he didn't, but if it is true that he didn't then this raises other questions. If he didn't know (as he claims) is it because he didn't read the briefs that would have told him or was this information withheld from him? If the information was withheld from him was the withholding accidental or deliberate? If it was accidental, then who was responsible? And if it was deliberate then not only should we know who was responsible, but why?


Certainly, the evidence suggests that (assuming that Dr. Rowley is telling the truth about not knowing of the impending arrest) Dr. Rowley is not reading his security briefs.  After all, if the former Prime Minister knew about it then on the balance of probabilities the current Prime Minister ought to have known.  This is serious because it would mean that the current head of the National Security Council is not working.


And it is just as serious if the information was deliberately not given to him in advance because this would be as close to a coup as you could possibly get ... the security apparatus deliberately withholding information from the head of the National Security Council!


 If he is not telling the truth then we ought to be told why he has lied to us about this and what else has he lied about?  And that is the conundrum that Dr. Rowley has created for himself. He can't have it both ways.  These questions are far too serious to allow cheap politics to come into play.

I must confess that (probably like most people) I didn't really consider sedition as anything more than a law on the statute books that would allow a government to prosecute somebody (or 'bodies') who was actively advocating the violent overthrow of a government.  I hadn't read the relevant law and was (again probably like most people)most surprised to see that Watson Duke had been arrested and charged with making seditious statements late last year. When I read in the press the statements that Mr. Duke is alleged to have made I did crease my brow in wonder as I didn't think that they were any more inflammatory that I have heard others make. Heck! I have heard none other than Keith Rowley in another incarnation as Opposition Leader say worse things, and although I can't think of an example off the top of my head I am fairly certain that I too have made worse statements than that which the erstwhile Mr. Duke is accused of making.


Put another way,  while almost every politician (both past and present) has probably made worse statements than those which Mr. Duke has been accused of making I'm fairly certain that nobody (myself and Keith Rowley included) intended that the particular government of the day should be ousted by violent means or indeed, by any other means other than the ballot box.


But apparently that is irrelevant. According to section 3 (1)(a) of the Sedition Act Chapter 11:04 a seditious intention is an intention "to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against Government or the Constitution as by law established ...". And then Section 3(1)(c) says that a seditious intention  is an intention "to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago." And then the law goes on to speak about a seditious intention being one where it is intended to promote ill will or hostility between one or more sections of the community or contempt for any "class of inhabitants of Trinidad & Tobago distinguished by race, colour, religion, profession, calling or employment" or killing any members of a group.


Put another way, everybody who has disparagingly referred to the Syrian community as "one percenters" or "one percent" has probably committed sedition as well as the politician Fitzgerald Hinds who has famously called for the killing of Indians.


Now, to be fair to Mr. Hinds, while I considered his remarks to be most distasteful if not racist, I certainly didn't think that he was literally calling for the deaths of Indians. But then I didn't think that Mr. Duke's remarks were seditious either. But Watson Duke has been charged and Fitzgerald Hinds was not. Makes you think, eh?  Why was one charged and not the other? Could it be that Mr. Duke was charged because his political stocks in Tobago are suggesting that his party will win the two Tobago seats in the next general elections?  Is it seditious to ask that question? (Because a casual reading of the Act suggests that it well might be!)


And am I being seditious in writing this? I don't think so. My intention here is simply to point out what I consider to be very, very serious errors being committed by the authorities as regards this whole unfortunate business.  And while I confess that I am now totally disillusioned with Keith Rowley's version of the PNM and sincerely believe that the sooner they are gone the better, I certainly would never advocate their violent overthrow. But do I believe that there are a number of jack-donkeys in ministerial positions? Yes! Unfortunately!


Every society needs laws. That is a given. The whole purpose of any law is to ensure the smooth and fair running of the society and to make sure that weaker members of society are not exploited by wealthier, more powerful persons. But we are free to make such laws as we might believe will assist us towards making a better place and to remove such laws that were once put in place by our colonial rulers in order to make sure that we were kept firmly in our place.


Let me put it like this: let's say that some bright spark in government decides that there should be a law that all men should not be allowed to be in public unless they are wearing green pants. You've only got to look at that to see how stupid it is. But it is the law! So? Shouldn't we remove that stupid law or should we arrest any and everybody who disobeys it? Because, the law, no matter how stupid is the law and must be obeyed!


This Sedition Act is one of those laws. It is an abomination and ought to be removed and the charges against Mr. Duke ought to be dropped.

SEDITION AND LIES

"Sedition is a misdemeanour at common law consisting of acts done, words spoken and published, or writings capable of being a libel published, in each case with intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exercise disaffection against ... the government and constitution ... or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice; or to excite the [citizenry] to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state by law established; or to incite persons to commit any crime in general disturbance of the peace; or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst [the citizenry]; or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of [the citizenry].
Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 10, page 569


I've posted the above so that people can read for themselves what exactly the law of sedition is all about. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that this is a very serious offence and gives the State some fairly wide powers. However, while it is the police who makes the decision to arrest someone for sedition it is the Director of Public prosecutions who decides whether or not that person should be charged and prosecuted for this offence.


So? Where exactly are we with what can loosely be termed "the Watson Duke affair"? You see, questions have arisen in my mind ... with everything else that has been going on in good old T&T ... as to whether or not there really is "fire" behind this "smoke" of his arrest, or whether it's just a 'smoke making machine". I have noticed that up to now we haven't been told exactly what the words are alleged to have been used by Mr. Duke that the police believe might be seditious. (Or at least, I haven't seen it.) Why? There is a not unreasonable suspicion in civil society that the real reason that he has been arrested is because he has been not only offending the living daylights out of the Prime Minister but is also scaring the h*** out of him in Tobago where most pundits are predicting that he will win the two Tobago seats in the next general election! (But that's another story for another time!)


The short point here is that the police should be advised to tread very carefully on this one and take scrupulous care  not to be seen or perceived as a tool (unwitting or otherwise) of the Government.  I suspect that Mr. Duke will not be charged and will eventually be released. If this happens, that would be a huge scandal as most people will believe that his arrest was simply a ploy to scare him and shut him up. If he is eventually charged, I sure hope for the sake of the taxpayers that the State is able to prove its case. Not to win this case would raise too many ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed ... at least for the moment.


Which leads on to the next question: is our Prime Minister a liar? You see, in this morning's Guardian newspaper there is a report (which is not in the Express) that the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that he never met the former Director of the SSA as Prime Minister. Now IF this report is true then it raises all sorts of other questions, the first one being why didn't you meet with him as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the chairman of the National Security Council. The SSA is arguably the most important of the security arms of the State. For a Prime Minister not to meet with the Director of the SSA speaks to a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. You see, either he didn't meet with Dennie because he (Rowley) didn't attend National Security Council meetings or Dennie didn't attend. And if Dennie didn't attend then what did Dr. Rowley do about his non attendance ... because this was never raised in the 2016 case that Dennie won against the State. And if it was Dr. Rowley who didn't attend the meetings then what does that say about him?


Put another way, Dr. Rowley cannot have it both ways. He can't say that he never met Dennie as Prime Minister and did nothing about it. He can't now say that why Dennie was fired is because he (Dennie) didn't attend National Security Council meetings because that was never raised in the 2016 lawsuit. So? The available evidence suggests that he (Rowley) has lied about this. But if he has lied to us about this a legitimate question is what else has he lied to us about?


You see, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is most unlikely that it is a pussy cat!

A NEW SOCIETY

Last week while reeling under the pressure of seeing one of his senior ministers and deputy political leader of his Party , Prime Minister Rowley boasted that his Government was engaged in building a new society.


As a patriot and one who only wants to see this little twin island republic advance, I was thrilled with the news. After all, the innuendo in the boast about building a new society is that things will get better ... and not worse! And who wouldn't want that?! There is so much in our society that needs fixing: the crime situation, the education system, the health care system, the roads, the economy ... and the list goes on! So? Building a new society should mean and ought to be taken to mean that at least some of these really serious problems are going to be fixed at last! And who wouldn't want that?!? I, for one, would love it if at least one thing on the very long list could get fixed ... permanently!


Unfortunately, our dear Prime Minister neglected to say exactly what his vision for this new society was, nor how exactly he and his cohorts were going about building it. I mean, it is very easy to say "we're building a new society". And when you say that everybody will interpret that to mean that you are engaged in making things better. But if you don't say exactly what you are doing or how you are going to do it, you really are just spouting a lot of hot air ... and we've got too much of that as it is!


So, my basic question to Dr. Rowley is what exactly are you doing or planning to do to make this new society come into being? Will this new society make things better for the people? If so, how? What have you done exactly over the last four years that have made life better for us? And please forgive me if I appear to be rude by asking these basic questions. I don't mean to be. Look: it is in EVERYBODY'S interests that the Government of the day ... whether it is PNM or UNC or ABC or anything else ... succeeds. I would love it if this Government succeeds. And why shouldn't I? I'm a citizen and a rising tide floats all boats. If things get better then my personal life should get better too! But the truth is that there is only one reason for politics; only one reason for government: TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE! PERIOD! There is no other reason!!


So, Dr, Rowley, it's back to you: how exactly are you building this new society and what do you envisage it to look like?

THE BOTTOM LINE

I was one of the lawyers at the meeting of the Law Association who had argued that the Prime Minister should be advised to invoke s.137 to impeach the Chief Justice. My argument was (and still is) that a corner stone of our justice system is that a person should be presumed to be innocent unless and until he/she is found guilty after a trial before a jury of his/her peers. The problem that we as a country face is that there are some rather serious accusations being made against the Chief Justice. Are they true? I really don't (and didn't) know. However, (I argued) there is a great need for this issue to be put to rest one way or the other.  The post of Chief Justice is one of the most important posts in our Republic. The Chief Justice is the head of our judiciary and oversees its administration. The mere suspicion that the Chief Justice might be indulging in behavior that raises ugly suspicions cannot be good for the society. We must at all times have the confidence that whomsoever occupies that exalted office that his/her behavior is beyond reproach.


Now, whether you like it or not, very ugly suspicions have arisen about the behavior of the current holder of this office. And they simply won't go away. And to make it worse, The Chief Justice has refused to answer any questions relating to these very ugly suspicions ... a refusal which has only served the purpose of causing some people to wonder what he might be hiding. Put another way, these very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions which  are arising over his behavior  are causing people to lose confidence in the whole administration of justice. After all, they argue, doesn't  fish rot from the head? And if there is corruption at the top what does that say for the whole justice system?


In other words, one way or the other, the society needs answers. Now, what is the best way to get answers? The best way is obviously a trial; either the trial (i.e., the impeachment) of the Chief Justice finds him innocent of the charges or it finds him guilty. Either way the best interests of the society are served.  If he is guilty then he should be removed from office. That is clear! And if he is innocent then whatever suspected stains there might be will be washed away and he will be able to walk proudly in the sunshine without any shadows falling across his path. And that is also in the society's best interests.


The bottom line is that an impeachment trial is absolutely necessary to clear the air ... one way or the other.