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.