EMAILGATE ... THE AFTERMATH

So the Emailgate saga seems to be finally over with the authorities saying that there is absolutely no justiciable evidence to show that former Prime Minister Persad Bissessar conspired with her Attorney General, her National Security Adviser and a senior Cabinet Minister to murder a female journalist.


Apart from the absolutely scandalous nature of these allegations we ought to look at them very carefully and try and figure out from the available evidence who is this "anonymous" author. (For the record, I'm going to refer to the author in this post as "he" but I do acknowledge that it could easily be a "she". I simply don't know who wrote these scandalous allegations.)


So, let's start from the beginning: obviously the prime suspect would be Dr. Rowley himself. After all, he had a fairly obvious motive and we have only his word that he "found" them in his mailbox. (If you believe that, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.) But this is most unlikely. Dr. Rowley has been in Parliament since January 1987. He knows full well that you just don't stand up in Parliament and make some scandalous allegations on the basis of an anonymous report. No. Either he made up the emails himself or he knew the person who gave it to him and believed that person to be credible.


Let me say that I don't believe that Dr. Rowley made up the purported emails. I acknowledge  that this might be quite possible and I certainly wouldn't put my head on a block for this, but I really don't believe that he was the author. No. I believe that it is far more likely that somebody gave them  to him on condition of anonymity. And Dr. Rowley would have trusted that person because of who he was/is and therefore reasonably believed that he (the person who gave him the emails) would have been in a position to confirm the contents of the fake documents. Of course, in these circumstances Dr. Rowley would have believed the author and would have taken the forgeries at face value having been thoroughly duped by the perpetrator.  Now, Dr. Rowley would also know that if he promised that anonymous person that he would not disclose his identity then if he broke that promise he would never get any information again ... and politicians need information from various sources who need to keep their identities secret for all sorts of reasons. If it was feared that Dr. Rowley would "sell out" a source nobody would ever trust him again. So he needed to use the euphemism that he "found" it in his mailbox.


So? Who would have the motive to do such a dastardly act? It would have to be somebody who felt that Mrs. Persad Bissessar had treated him unfairly and had some kind of grudge against the former Prime Minister and her colleagues. So? Who could that be?


Let's do a little forensic thinking: We know that Dr. Rowley made his "disclosures" in May 2013.  What was happening then? Were there any scandals that had occurred then or before then but after the UNC came to power in 2010? It is not unreasonable to presume that the "whistleblower" was either a disgruntled politician or a disgruntled former chairman of some State enterprise who had been fired. So? What politicians or former chairmen around that time were there who might have felt that they had been treated unfairly. Was there anybody who had been fired for something that he claimed was not his fault or who had been made to take the blame for something? If so, what and who?


In Mrs. Persad Bissessar's time there were a number of dismissals of senior politicians but most of these took place AFTER May 2013. Though I can't remember any chairmen being fired in the period in question that doesn't mean that it didn't happen ... it's just that I don't remember. What took place before?  That's where we have to look.


Finally, to produce something looking like a genuine email but which is in fact a fake takes a certain skill ... a certain "computer savvy". I decided to try and produce a fake email just to see if it could be done easily. I failed miserably in my attempts. Then I went to the "experts" in my family ... my two sons (ages 17 and 20) but they told me that to produce a credible forgery you would have to have certain skills on the computer that they simply didn't possess.  So, whoever we are looking for as the author of these fake emails would have to be somebody who either possessed the requisite computer skills or ( more probably) have access to somebody whom he could trust who had the requisite computer skills. Because, a conspiracy like this would require that the author would have to trust the creator of the fake emails absolutely. So? Now we have a profile, the question is who fits it?


P.S.  The question as to who fits the profile is largely rhetorical. I strongly advise that nobody answers that question by saying something like "X" did it. Unless you have good evidence that "Mr.X" is the author I strongly advise that you keep his name to yourself. The purpose of this post is to try and make you think and to ask the questions that the police don't seem to want to know the answers to. Because, if they did, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to close this case!

WHAT MAKES A PERSON A CITIZEN? RACE?

The obviously racial tweets of the American President which were broadcast around the world got me to thinking about the situation here in our own little corner of the world. Trump told four American Congresswomen of colour basically to go back where they came from first before criticizing him or any "American".  Okay, I've paraphrased a little, but that is basically what he said. It didn't matter that three of the women were actually born in the United States or that the fourth, who was born in Somalia, became a citizen of the USA. No. It only mattered that they were obviously not white and therefore didn't belong in America. He might as well have put up a sign "This country reserved for whites only ... and only whites of a certain background ... not all whites accepted!"


I don't want to get into Trump's obviously racial agenda nor to tell the Americans what I think they should do with him. (Clearly, it wouldn't be at all complimentary!) But I do want to discuss what makes a person a citizen of any country. You see, as far as I am concerned you can become a citizen in basically three different ways: first of all, you can acquire citizenship by actually being born in the particular country. Secondly, you can acquire citizenship through either one or both of your parents even if you were actually born elsewhere. And thirdly, you can acquire citizenship by applying for it and getting it once you have fulfilled all of the requirements that have been laid down by that country's laws.


Now, it seems to me that most times if a person is applying for citizenship of a country to which he/she does not have  birthright that this type of person is probably anxious to "put down his/her bucket" and contribute to the society. In other words, generally speaking, a person to be welcomed. And, yes, I am aware that there are (unfortunately) exceptions to this statement.


But should a person who is not born in a country but becomes a citizen be regarded differently from one who is born there? In other words, are there ... or should there be ... different classes of citizenship? I personally don't think so, but what do you think?


I am asking this question because here in good old T&T the population is more or less evenly divided between those of African and Indian descent (with mixed, whites and Syrians making up a small percentage of the whole).  But if you go into either of the two main communities (if I am allowed to use that word) you will soon find lingering just below the surface a complete distrust of the "other side".  As a result, the country remains paralyzed because you can't vote for "them" if you are one of "us". Issues and policies are rarely, if ever, discussed without the looming specter of race colouring every viewpoint. Oh yes! Money comes into play (as it does elsewhere) but nowhere as strongly as the race card which is pulled out again and again whenever one side or the other feels that its support is slipping and needs to be shored up.


So I come back to my question: what makes a person a citizen? His ethnicity? Because, quite frankly, its not only the idiot of an American President who obviously believes that nonsense. And the sooner we as a society genuinely  condemns racism in all of its forms the better. Unfortunately, racism is not a disease that affects only one type of ethnicity, but strikes at all! And until we collectively acknowledge that all of us have an equal right not only to be here, but as to how we think the country should be run we'll be spinning the proverbial top in the proverbial mud! In other words, criticize the ideas but not the personalities.

OF PALACE COUPS AND INTRIGUE

Okay. Here's what we know: Prime Minister Keith Rowley has slammed the Americans twice in the last year. The first time was when he publicly blasted the American Ambassador effectively telling him to mind his own business over T&T's relations with Venezuela and the second was more recently when he blasted the US State Department over its listing T&T as a two tier country in terms of human trafficking. (It didn't matter to our Prime Minister that there is a lot of trafficking especially of young girls and women going on). On both occasions the American response was muted, but on this last time the Masters of Marli Street went out of their way to praise the erstwhile Minister of Everything and National Security, Stewart Young.


Now, here's the rumour: certain persons inside the PNM are reporting that the Americans are not at all pleased with Dr. Rowley. Well, no surprise there. But they go on that they  (the Americans) would like to see the back of Dr. Rowley, but  apparently don't want to see Kamla back in the saddle. In the circumstances, the rumour is that the Americans are seriously considering how to organize something of a 'palace coup' replacing Dr. Rowley with Mr. Young, with whom they feel much more comfortable.


Question: where is Mr. Young in all this palace intrigue? Is he actively stoking the proverbial fires of 'revolution', or is he just sitting back and letting events take their course? Or, is he actively trying to stamp out this particular fire? What is clear is that if there is any glimmer of truth in these rumours we will be in for interesting times as the PNM and the country gear up for the looming general elections. Dr. Rowley will be looking very carefully at what his Minister is doing and who he is talking to!


PNM has successfully positioned itself to be seen as the country's "default party", much like the Republican party in the United States. In other words, the country can experiment from time to time with other political parties, but the PNM will always be there to "pick up the slack" whenever needed. At least, that is part of the myth that the PNM has built for itself over the years, and as Hitler (and now Trump) found out, the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated the more people will believe it.  So it doesn't matter whether that is true or not, or even if the PNM of today is the same (or not) of the PNM of 1956. All that matters is that the average person believes that the PNM can be counted on to save the country when times get rough. Perception, in other words, is always reality ... especially in politics!


So, the lesson is that if you want to control the country, control the party, i.e., the PNM! And that is why we should pay attention to these rumours. While it is true that as John F. Kennedy once said 'where there is smoke there's a smoke making machine', more often than not the old adage about 'where there's smoke there's fire' is often more accurate. And if the rumour has any semblance of truth in it then we will soon see some subtle moves at the top as the players reposition themselves. We should all pay close attention. It's going to be interesting.

THE MIGRANT CRISIS: A SOLUTION

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: if you want to fix a problem, you have to go back to basics. Now, we have a serious problem in good old T&T, and that is the fact that we are being overrun by Venezuelan immigrants fleeing Maburro's murderous and incompetent regime. Look, we have a small population. Nobody seems to know exactly what the size of our population is, but most people (including me) seem to think that it is in the region of about 1.5 million people, so let's assume (though not necessarily accept) that this is a correct figure.  Now, Venezuela has (or had) a population of about 30 million people.


At the beginning of this year it was estimated that about 3 million people had left ... migrated ... from Venezuela, with the majority going to other Latin American countries like Colombia. Some had come here. But as the situation in Venezuela has continued to deteriorate that migration has picked up steam so that it is now estimated that some 3.7 million people have left that unfortunate country and that before the end of this year there will be an estimated 4 million migrants! Put anther way, that will be some 4 million people who are so desperate that they have left everything behind to start life anew in another country. And those coming here can't even speak the language! Can you imagine how desperate they must be?!  How bad the situation is for them to leave everything behind to come here?


And here is where we come in. With registration of Venezuelan migrants closing tomorrow (Friday 14th June, 2019) there is now a sudden rush to register. There are also unconfirmed reports that the number of boat loads of migrants from the mainland have increased substantially over the last week as thousands of Venezuelans are rushing to get some sort of legal permission to stay in Trinidad.


Now, nobody knows exactly how many Venezuelans there are here right now. And certainly, by Friday night, it is not unreasonable to  presume that only a very small percentage of those actually over here will be registered. So? How many do you think are actually here? Fiftty thousand? A hundred thousand?


You realize that it is quite possible that there could be around 75,000 Venezuelans over here (taking a middle number of between 50,000 and 100,000)!? In other words, very roughly, our population has increased by about 5 percent this year! Now, do you see the problem? The United States (which is far wealthier than we are) has a population of about 300 million. Five percent of that figure would be 15 million! But their migrant problem is not even a million ... and yet there are many (starting with their idiot of a President) who complain!


My point here is that it is crystal clear that we simply cannot cope with this level of migration and as much as any and every God fearing and fair minded person would want to help, we simply haven't got the resources to do so. And sending them back is inhumane. It is a little like your neighbor is beating his wife and children so badly that they flee to your house for protection. They have no money and no means of supporting themselves so you can't turn them out onto the street and you can't send them back home because the husband will literally beat them to death. But You can't afford to feed them! So? What in the name of heaven do you do?


Remember how I started this post about going back to basics? In the example given above, the best solution would be to go to Court and get an Order putting the husband out of the house and an Order that he is not to go anywhere near the wife and children. Well, this is my point with the migrants: the root cause of this problem is Maburro and his devastating policies and thievery  that have not only ruined his country but are now causing ours to be ruined. He must be made to go ... NOW!!  This migrant problem will only get worse if we don't help the Venezuelans to fix THEIR problem NOW! Because, not fixing their problem is only going to create multiple problems for US!!! And Venezuela can't fix with the Donkey and his cronies in power over there!


P.S.  Astute readers will note that I have deliberately not gone into the 'blame game' and how I think that this problem could/might have been avoided in the first place. That is a luxury that we can all debate later. In the meantime, let's fix the present problem now.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

According to a newspaper report this morning (Tuesday 4th June, 2019) some 2,500 Venezuelans have registered under the TT Government's amnesty/registration program. According also to newspaper reports the Government appears to be quite pleased with the exercise currently going on. So? If all the reports are true, then we should all sit back and pat the Government on its proverbial back, shouldn't we?


Here's where I say 'hold it sheriff, she's heading for the strawberry patch'! You see, the government has said that it will hold this registration exercise over a 14 day period. Now, the exercise started last Friday, 4 days ago (not counting today). In other words, an average of 625 Venezuelans were registered every day for the last 4 days. So, if we extrapolate those numbers out we get 8,750 (14 x 8,750). In other words we can expect a little less than 10,000 Venezuelans to register.


So? Question: assuming that there is no big rush at the end of the registration period and the average daily registration climbs to, say, 700 per day, that number (9,800) still comes to less than 10,000. Does this mean (a) that the majority of Venezuelans here are not registering, or (b) the reports of TT being swamped by illegal immigration are woefully inaccurate, or (c) a bit of both? My personal bet (with absolutely nothing to back it up except my gut) is that the answer is (c).


So, assuming (but not accepting) that my gut is right, then the question is 'why'? Why are the majority of Venezuelans not registering? Why are the reports inaccurate?


In answer to the first 'why' I think that the reason that the majority are not registering is a simple one: a lack of trust. Frankly, given all the past actions and statements of "jefes" in the TT Government, would you trust them NOT to turn you over to Maburro & Co. if you had fled that murderous regime fearing for your life ... literally? I'm not sure that I would.


Then, onto item (b) ... the inaccurate reporting of the immigration problem. Again, let me be clear: I have nothing to go on but my gut in this. To the best of my knowledge there are no reasonably accurate reports as to the extent of the problem. But I do believe (my gut again) that we are indeed being swamped by illegal immigration. What I don't know is how bad is it? How much of a problem do we have?


It seems that (unsurprisingly) the problem is much more acute in the South than anywhere else. But neither the authorities nor the main stream media (who you might think both  have the resources to answer these type of questions) have apparently not  bothered to get any hard data on this.


Let's understand something clearly: assuming that our population figures from the Central Statistical Office are reasonably accurate, we are a nation of approximately 1.4 million souls. Now, assuming that we have somewhere around 100,000 legal or illegal Venezuelans coming over here that means that we have an almost 10 percent increase in our population overnight! No nation on this planet can suffer such an increase in its population in such a short space of time and not have disastrous consequences. 


But our Government's solutions seem to be deflect, deflect and deflect. The root cause of our problem is the murderous, narco driven dictatorship of Messrs. Maburro & Co. For crying out loud, when are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? Until then, you know exactly what's wrong with this picture!

THE REFUGEE CRISIS

It is a truism that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them in the first place. And to say that we in good old T&T remained blissfully unaware of the very real problems that Maburro et al were creating in Venezuela is sadly true. The leaders of our own Government were happy to join conga lines and dance with the Venezuelan dictator while professing "neutrality" in the crisis that was engulfing that unhappy South American nation. Although some of us were trying to point out that the problems next door were serious and could come back to "bite" us our local media happily ignored the problems being created by the Donkey and continued to support our Government's neutrality.


But then, all of a sudden, people began to notice that there was a very large number of Venezuelan refugees here (mostly) in Trinidad. I have seen no reliable numbers as to how many Venezuelan refugees are over here ... I've seen estimates of 40,000 on the low side all the way to 80,000 on the high side. What is correct, I haven't a clue! All I do know is that our little country simply can't cope with the numbers coming over in what feels like droves. We are being overwhelmed. And it is going to get worse ... much worse!


But wasn't this predictable? And if it was (and I believe that it was) then why didn't our Government realize this early o'clock and deal with the root cause of this humanitarian disaster? Because, make no mistake about it: the root cause is the complete and utter failure of Maburro & Co. to run their country in an honest and effective manner. We (i.e., T&T) would have been better off calling on Maburro either to go or to hold HONEST and FAIR Presidential elections and siding with all those who refused to support him until he allowed the people to choose fairly. But we didn't! Instead, we effectively gave the Donkey critical support in the rather stupid and unrealistic hope of getting the Dragon Gas deal through the Opposition dominated National Assembly. And we 'cussed up' the United States, our largest trading partner, in the process. Really smart! Really in our country's best interests!


And now we have  a terrible crisis on our hands. It is inhumane to send the refugees back. But we simply can't afford to keep them here! No matter which way you turn the problem, people are going to suffer ... greatly! The only solution that I can see is a verrrryyyyy long term one: first, you have to get rid of the dictator... and the sooner the better! He and his cronies are the root cause of everything and the problems won't get better as long as they remain in power. In fact, they'll only get worse. Then you have to rebuild the country ... and that's a 20 year project. But we don't have the luxury of 20 years! And finally, we have to recognize that in everything, T&T must come first and it is not always in our best interests to be 'neutral'.


But we also have to be honest with ourselves. We are in this mess now because we were happy to pretend that the problems next door were not ours and therefore we shouldn't interfere when we could have and should have.

HOW DICTATORSHIPS START

On Sunday my wife and 16 year old son while driving in Diego Martin near to Victoria Gardens were stopped in a police roadblock. Okay. no complaint there. After producing her (Trinidadian) driver's licence and insurance, the police officer asked her where she was from. Why? I suppose the officer heard her accent ... she is Venezuelan. Then he asked her how long she had been here in Trinidad? She replied truthfully ... 22 years. He appeared not to believe her.  But her driver's licence shows when it was first issued. So? Why would he ask her that? Then the policeman turned to my son and asked for his ID ... which my 16 year old son had on him. Then the officer asked my son what was his ethnicity. When my son replied 'Trinidadian' he was told roughly 'that's your nationality, not your ethnicity'. Would he have asked my son that if my son was another colour? Certainly, if I had been in the car the policeman would have been directed to a short jetty in the Gulf of Paria and told to take a long jump.


Now, I don't know about you, but I found these questions to be as offensive as they were disturbing and when my wife and son came home and reported the incident to me I was as upset as I ought to have been. It is probably better that I don't say what I thought were his reasons for asking those questions, but I was and am offended and annoyed.  Look, it is either we live under a system of law or we don't. We can't pretend that we are law abiding when the police so casually trample upon our constitutional rights and ask intrusive questions that have no place in a civilized and law abiding community.


Then last Friday a client came to see me because he said that he said that he had received a call from a police woman from the St. James police station concerning a domestic dispute between him and his live in girlfriend. But the woman police officer didn't leave her name and when I called the number on his cell phone from which the call had been received there was no answer! So? Was it a real call? If so, why didn't the officer identify herself and why was there no answer from the landline on which the original call had been made? Because I called the number and got no reply! Or is it that the police do not now answer their landline telephones?


I guess I'm already keyed up and annoyed because of the reports in the newspapers about the WASA police seizing farmers' water pumps. Let me explain: all the fresh water that comes out of the ground in this country belongs to WASA and you can't even drill a well on your property at home and extract it without a licence. So, if the farmers did take water from a stream without a licence to do so then they have committed an offence and can be fined for that offence.




BUT (and it is a big "but") the Constitution of our Republic gives all of us a right to private property. Put another way, no policeman can take away anything from you WITHOUT  a Court Order. Anybody who does so is committing an offence. Put another way, two, or even three wrongs do not make a right.


Well, you might say that is no big thing. But it is a big thing. This is how dictatorships start ... take control of little things and gradually work up to bigger things.


Then we had the Gulf View searches in La Romaine. To date the police have not produced the search warrants. Again, why is this a big thing? Because as long ago as 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed a man's home was regarded as his castle and the State cannot enter into a man's home without lawful authority. This means that unless the police are in hot pursuit of a criminal they cannot enter anybody's property without lawful authority ... a search warrant or a Court Order... and if they do not show the owner the warrant he is within his legal right to refuse entry. Further, the police officer showing the warrant must be identified in the warrant as well as any other police officers who are looking to enter and search the house.


Now, from the news reports it seems that five houses were searched. Question: how many search warrants were issued? Another question: why has it been so difficult to produce the warrants? Another question again: why did some police officers cover their faces?


Then we have the ongoing problem of a policeman in a police car turning on his siren to get out of traffic to the annoyance of everyone. Heck, every weekday morning at around 7:15am I see a police jeep speeding eastwards in Cocorite with its siren blaring. You mean to tell me that you really believe that every weekday morning at about that time there is a police emergency?  Really? Pull the other one ... it's got bells on it!


This is the way that dictatorships start. At first the authorities abuse their powers in small ways and when there is no 'push back' then they push a little more, and then a little more and so on until before you know it your rights have flown out the window. 


One of the favourite excuses for the sort of police actions that we have been seeing recently is this is being done because of the extraordinary crime wave that we are experiencing. But, hello! That is what states of emergency were designed for under the Constitution. The advantage of having a state of emergency is that everybody knows that constitutional rights are suspended AND they are always for a limited time AND appropriate questions can be asked in Parliament ... which, after all, is what is supposed to happen.


What is not supposed to happen is that the police can effectively operate as if they are a law unto themselves and not give any account for their actions. We DO have a right to know and we DO have a right to ask questions and we DO have a right to push back against unlawful searches and seizures. At least, that is what our laws still say. If these laws have been changed then nobody has told me!

THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

When Trinbagonians go to the polls in a general election (whether later this year as many believe will happen, or in September next year when it is due) it could very well be the last time for a very long time that the PNM wins an overall majority, unless the Party renews itself and starts to deliver on its promises to increasingly disgruntled supporters. Certainly, the available evidence suggests that just ain't gonna happen any time soon ... but a week is a long time in politics and unless your name is Vishnu Bisram of NACTA fame you will not want to make any type of prediction to have it come back and bite you in the nether regions! We'll have to wait and see, even though many of us still feel that we're getting wet by the rain that the erstwhile Finance Minister says has gone which allows him now to see clearly.


As things stand today (and certainly not tomorrow or even next week) the opposition UNC is likely to retain its 18 seats.  But the real fight will be in the marginal seats,  and as things stand right now it very much looks like the PNM may take a hit in those marginal seats that it now holds. Assuming (though obviously not accepting) that my crystal ball is fairly accurate as to how things stand today, it looks like the PNM will take a hit (i.e., it will lose) at least San Fernando West, St. Joseph, Tunapuna and Tobago East. In the first 3, if the UNC wins them while holding on to it's 18 seats that puts them over the top and into government. (Remember that the "magic" number is 21!) If the PNM loses all 3 but manages to "steal" a UNC seat (which I honestly don't see happening ... but, hey! We're speculating) then we get a rather interesting scenario with Watson Duke & Co. holding Tobago East and therefore the balance of power. (I'm saying this based on various reports that I have received which suggest that Mr. Duke will win Tobago East if there was an election today!) Now, if THAT happens, we could well be reading "Prime Minister Watson Duke said today ..."! Don't laugh! It could happen and Mr. Duke seems to be playing for just that eventuality.


Further,  I will be the first to admit that there are other PNM seats that look as though they might be up for grabs. My list of 3 seats falling in Trinidad is by no means meant to be conclusive. Honestly, as things stand right now I believe that at least another 2 PNM held seats will fall (Moruga/Tableland and La Horquetta/Talparo).  My real point is that in the Parliamentary system that we have its no good saying "I feel that X party will win". You have to say which seats will stay and which will fall to the other side (whoever "the other side" might be). And that's what I'm trying to do here.


That we (the T&T electorate) have a very real problem and a very serious choice to make when the election comes is indisputable. Both major political parties have huge corruption issues attached to their names. The UNC is still struggling with all of the allegations against them and which have been given new life by the Ramlogan/Ramdeen charges. But the ruling PNM is also facing some terrible allegations of corruption such as the depositing of $140,000 in cash by a senior minister with no explanation being given as to where the cash came from, the closure of Petrotrin and the proposed sale of the refinery, the "Fake Oil" scandal, the Tobago ferries, the Australian boats,  "Emailgate", etc.. Unfortunately, the list on both sides is too long for comfort.


Sadly, I expect the 'race card' to be played in the next elections. There already is some evidence of this happening.  Maybe that is the real reason why we can't seem to get our act together and make this little country of ours the proverbial "shining city on the hill".

A VALID CHARGE ... OR A MASSIVE DISTRACTION

Okay. At this early stage of proceedings there are very few of us who will have any idea as to what exactly is going on in the Ramlogan/Ramdeen matter and whether or not there really is something for all of us to be concerned about. After all, where there is smoke there is fire ... or a smoke making machine! And there's my problem. Well, we'll all find out soon enough, I guess, but there are some rather troubling aspects of this whole affair which have caused me to raise my eyebrows in wonder.


The first thing that I have noticed is that Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan have only been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime ... and not with having committed the actual crime which they are alleged to have conspired to commit. Why? Conspiracy is one of the most difficult crimes to prove and usually charges under this head of criminal law are brought in conjunction with the actual crime which the perpetrators have allegedly conspired to commit. But that isn't the case here! Why? Did any money pass? If so, then why isn't that part of the case as well?


Then there is the curious case of the Jamaican-born English QC pleading guilty under a plea agreement which we haven't seen ... at least not yet. Okay. The reports say that the plea agreement will be presented in the High Court next week so it is a fair argument to say that it cannot be published until the presiding Judge sees it. (Although I would be prepared to argue otherwise ... but that is another argument and not relevant to this post.) In other words, is the learned gentleman going to be allowed to keep his money which apparently he is saying was part of a conspiracy? Or is it that he is saying that no money passed but he is guilty of conspiring with Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan and perhaps others to make money pass?


You see, as I understand the law, (and I will happily admit that my understanding may be incomplete) the recent Explain Your Wealth Act and other relevant legislation effectively means that if I receive, say, $100 under circumstances which involve the commission of a crime (such as conspiracy) and I conspire with you (who are organizing/approving the payment for me) to give you, say, $50 out of the $100 then the entire $100 becomes forfeit to the State if I am proven guilty and I have to pay the whole $100 back.


So my question is: is this guy, Nelson Vincent QC, going to have to pay back any or all of the millions that he is reported to have received? And if not, why not? And if so, how much and when will he pay it back under the plea agreement? Immediately? Or has he done so already? If he has paid it back, when did he do so?


No. There is something not quite right with this whole story. Exactly what is not right I can't say, but it is clear that we are not getting the whole story. If we do get the whole story at some time in the future, then there you go! All is well. But why can't we be given the whole story now? Something is just not right and there are too many "whys" arising which need to be explained. It isn't that they can't be explained, but that they are not being explained.


Of course, the possibility exists that all this could just be a massive distraction and elections are going to be called fairly soon.  Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy when thoughts like this can even arise and leave you wondering?

WASA'S 'DEVASTATING' DRY SEASON

Look, I'm the first to admit that we are in the throes of a dry season. I also have stopped watering my garden (thereby losing half of my plants and half of my lawn) and don't wash the car every week in an effort to do my own little bit to help conserve precious water. After all, if everybody cuts back on his/her water consumption there will be savings ... and every little bit helps. And no, I'm not some sort of hero ... just an ordinary person trying to help.


But what confuses me are the continuing reports in the mainstream media that this is a "devastating" dry season that is worse than usual and WASA has a real problem in keeping us all supplied BECAUSE of the dry weather. (No mention, of course, of the millions of gallons being lost on a daily basis because of leaky pipes!)


You see, I live in North Western Trinidad (Maraval to be precise). Now when we have a really bad dry season the hills in Maraval turn brown and by this time of year (the end of April) there are usually terrible forest fires raging in those hills. But ... guess what? This year I have seen no forest fires and the hills are still fairly green! Going into Diego Martin I find that the hills also look greener than they do during a really harsh dry season.  Now, the hills are not what you might call "lush" green, but they are certainly not brown ... which they normally are at this time of year.


In addition, there have been showers that have managed to keep lawns and plants alive in my neighbourhood.


So? What is going on? Are we really in the throes of a devastating dry season? Or are we being subjected to propaganda by the powers-that-be in order to "take in front" for the incompetence of those charged with providing us with a safe and secure water supply? Because, although I will readily confess to not having a PhD in meteorology my simple and most unscientific observation is that this particular dry season is not soooo bad ... which is what the authorities would have us believe.


So? Why are we getting these constant statements to the effect that this is the worst dry season for a long time? And why isn't the mainstream media reporting or questioning the statements about this being the worst dry season ever, etc.? Something here just doesn't add up. What? And why?

TO IMPEACH OR NOT TO IMPEACH

While the whole world is fixated on the Mueller report and whether or not President Trump should or should not be impeached, a lot of people have forgotten that we have going on in good old T&T our own little impeachment drama, which although not of earth shattering importance to the rest of the world, is of great importance to our democracy and how we govern ourselves. I am talking about the recommendation by the Law Association of Trinidad & Tobago  to the Prime Minister made some four or five months ago that he should trigger the provisions of section 137 of the Constitution which sets out how a Chief Justice might be removed from office. For the record, here is what the relevant parts of the section say:


"137(1) A Judge may be removed from office ... for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with this provision.
        (3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice ... represents to the President that the question of removing a Judge under this section ought to be so investigated, then -
            (a) the President shall appoint  a tribunal ... ."


The section goes on to detail how the tribunal is to be appointed and is supposed to act or investigate. In other words, the Chief Justice is put on trial for the acts or decisions that may warrant removal from office. Eventually, the findings of the tribunal are sent to the Privy Council for a final decision.  It is important to note that triggering the impeachment process is NOT finding the Chief Justice guilty. It is simply saying, hey, there are a number of matters here that need to be answered which may or may not be a good reason to remove you from office if you are guilty of all or any of them.


There are a number of safeguards built into the whole impeachment process that can ensure that a Chief Justice is not dealt with unfairly ... and all right thinking peoples will agree entirely with these safeguards.  Our system of justice is sacrosanct. Without a fair system of justice that everybody buys into (regardless of one's political bias or interest) then what you have is a dictatorship ... benign or otherwise. And the safeguards are there to ensure that a politician just can't remove a judge or a Chief Justice just like that.


Now, there are, unfortunately. a fair number of questions hanging over the head of the current Chief Justice. Any fair minded person ought readily to concede that he may well be innocent of every single charge, just as he may be guilty of any or all of them. But what is clear is that there has been no open investigation and no opportunity for the embattled gentleman to put his answers. No matter how one might feel about the current Chief Justice ... whether he is good, bad or indifferent ... the point here is that both he and the country need to have the air completely cleared. If there is a stain then he ought to be removed. If there is no stain then he ought to be exonerated. But what we have now is that the current holder of that high office is operating under a very dark cloud of suspicion which is not good for him personally nor is it good for the country. One way or the other the air needs to be cleared.


The Constitution provides a beacon of principle and  democratic values to the country. The Prime Minister must pick up the baton which the Law Association has sent to him and trigger the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. But it needs to be clearly understood that the Chief Justice may very well be innocent of the various crimes and misbehaviours of which he stands accused and we all should be most wary of rushing to judgment merely because the process has been triggered.


And the Prime Minister should be acutely aware that perception is often reality and that  there is a perception amongst certain sections of our society that his refusal to date to trigger the impeachment process is based more on perceptions of race and of tribal loyalty than of what is best for the country. These perceptions are as unfortunate as they are dangerous for our society and it is necessary that they be addressed head on. Our justice system requires it. Indeed, the survival of our democracy demands it.

DEVALUATIONS AND ELECTIONS

In the past few days there has been an increased commentary by persons on both sides of the political divide about whether or not Trinidad & Tobago will devalue it's currency. Right now the official exchange rate is hovering around US$1 equals TT$6.75. However, there is a dearth of availability of US dollars for any reason ... whether legitimate or otherwise ... and the black market rate is now hovering around TT$9 equals US$1.


The authorities from time to time issue stern warnings about black market foreign currency deals, which warnings are cheerfully ignored by the populace as a whole. Indeed, unless you have a contact getting any amount of foreign currency is difficult if not impossible. One mother that I know was the other day desperately trying to get US$2,000 to send to her son who is in university in the States. On the one hand, its not a lot of money, but on the other hand the money is desperately needed by the young man to pay his rent and buy food! She couldn't get the foreign currency in time from the bank so she bought the money on the black market. When the bank finally came through (after about two weeks) she took the money from the bank and promptly resold it on the black market to recoup her loss when she was forced to buy.


Of course, the problem is exacerbated by the local banks who buy the foreign currency at comparatively low rates and resell it at a huge profit! But, at least they are legal! In any case, the (mis)behaviour of the banks is another story. It is suffice to note at this time that they are not at all innocent in this mess and have actually helped to exacerbate the problem with their greedy and predatory way of doing business.


In the meantime the country is bleeding heavily. Our foreign currency reserves are falling at an alarming rate and we now have less than a year of import cover. So? What should we do?


The Government spokesmen (and women) talk about "diversification". Sounds good, eh? But in reality how serious are they? Let me give you an example: Trinidad & Tobago imports tomatoes. Now, I am ashamed to admit that I haven't a clue how much a pound of tomatoes costs ... my wife does all of our groceries! But let's pretend for the sake of example that a pound of tomatoes costs an importer US$1 per pound. Now, if T&T were to devalue (and let's be drastic for the sake again of example) to say US$1 now equals TT$20 it won't take a genius to realize that the importation of tomatoes would no longer be a good business. People just wouldn't be able to afford to buy the imported product. The end result would be that local farmers would finally be able to compete with the international product. In other words, and using this rather over-simplified example, the devaluation would have allowed a certain diversification in a part of the agricultural sector.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that a devaluation would also cause a tidal wave throughout the local economy. For example, motor cars and trucks would all of a sudden become prohibitively expensive.  I'm sure you get my point. A devaluation is a fairly classic device that governments can use to prevent foreign exchange from leaking out.


Which brings me to my next point: devaluations always cause hardships in the society ... especially amongst the poorer classes. Everybody's life becomes more expensive and it becomes harder to make ends meet. It is no wonder, therefore, that most governments try desperately to avoid this step.  But a general election is due by September next year. The Government can borrow enough over the next few months that will allow the standard of living to be held or maintained ... more or less ... for another year, but it's room for maneuver is going to become more and more restricted as time goes by. Put another way, there is nothing on our economic horizon, either in terms of some miraculous bailout (like  a massive oil discovery) or in terms of new economic proposals that remotely look like an end to the economic hurricane that is battering us right now.


An early election would avoid the Government having to devalue the currency ... they could always do it after. But the truth is that a devaluation is beginning to look more and more like the only way out for us. I would love to be wrong on this, but I have a very real fear that if we don't bite this particular bullet soon our delaying "taking in front" will be even worse for us when our reserves finally run out and we are forced to go ignominiously cap in hand (as we did in the late eighties) to the IMF.

THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH BILL

The principle that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been a bedrock principle of our law since almost the beginning of time.  It is also enshrined into our Constitution that no one shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. There is also the old adage that our legal system promotes that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang.


That is why I was most shocked and dismayed when I read Mr. Faris Al Rawi's latest attempt at closing loopholes that allow all kinds of criminals (especially white collar ones) to escape from the long arm of the law. Basically, the erstwhile Attorney General is saying that this Bill is necessary because there are too many people who have unexplained wealth and that  this proposed law is a way of catching them. Well, to be fair, he has a point there. I mean, for example,  does anybody remember the report of Planning Minister Camille Robinson Regis depositing some $143,000 in cash in a First Citizens Bank and there never being a satisfactory explanation given for that?  Was that transaction suspicious in your opinion? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so? Will the Honourable Attorney General explain where he and his wife, for example, found the money to buy a property in St. Clair which they are renting to the Government for some $23 million over the next three years? And if they inherited or were given that property is it reasonable to ask where the donor(s) of that very expensive property got the money in the first place? Is that suspicious in your view? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so?


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Would it be reasonable (using these two examples) to launch probes into these matters? If not, why not? And if so, why? Continuing the use of these two examples, what if there was a change of Government tomorrow morning and the new Attorney General uses his position from behind the scenes to have these two politicians have their property frozen?  Would you say that this was politically motivated? If so, why would you say so? If not, why not?


And although the Attorney General points to safeguards in the Bill whereby persons such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have to sign off on any application to freeze the assets does anybody believe that the DPP, for example,  is really politically impartial? If you do, then why do you believe that? If you don't, then why do you believe that? Certainly, from where I sit there are certain questions that make me wonder about the DPP. For example, why has the infamous emailgate affair not been brought to a conclusion? Why hasn't the matter involving the drugs at former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar's home been cleared up? There are other matters to which no clear and reasonable answers have been forthcoming from the DPP or his office. His signal failure to deal with these matters gives rise to most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed as to why he hasn't acted. And that's really the point. We have to be even more careful than the larger societies that our basic rights are not trampled upon because everybody knows everybody else.


The Bill is draconian. If you are accused your property can be frozen 'ex parte' , i.e., behind your back and without you getting any chance to say why this shouldn't happen. All of your assets are frozen! Full stop! And it is up to you to go and defend yourself. But (and here's the catch) if you hire a lawyer to defend you he has to be very careful that any monies that you use to pay his fees are free and clear, because if they are linked to you, his fees, that you have paid him to defend you, can be seized! Talk about a Catch 22! What lawyers do you know will want to do matters like this whereby simply for defending a client the lawyer can find himself being investigated and his assets being frozen as well?


So, you are put in the unenviable position of having your assets frozen ...and that includes your home, by the way ... and having no means to defend yourself (unless you have some wealthy relatives who love you very much) and having to fight the State with its comparatively unlimited resources. A really fair fight!


I am personally of the view that this proposed law will not be able to stand up in Court. But that will take years to be fought out and in the meantime a lot of mischief and expense can and will take place. That there is an abuse and that some people are getting away is readily admitted.  But the Bill as it stands is clearly an abomination. It sweeps up everybody ... not only the guilty. Our only real hope is that the nine Independent Senators vote against this Bill when it reaches the Senate. But it will only take one Independent senator for the Bill to pass! Will each and every one stand and vote against this Bill? Because you should know that they are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.

WHY ISN'T THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTING ON THE VEMEZUELAN CRISIS?

If ever there was a news story that affected not only Trinidad & Tobago but the entire Caribbean it is the extreme crisis taking place in Venezuela. As of today, the entire country has been without electricity for six long days. The supply of electricity since the crisis began last Thursday has been sporadic ... sometimes you get power but most of the time you don't. Foreign news reports say that up to now some twenty-four people have died of which six were infants.


But this crisis might as well be happening on the moon and not a few miles away, if you read the local newspapers or listen to the local radio and television stations. Oh, the papers do put a story on the crisis in their pages from time to time, but then they devote a lot more time and space to whether or not newly appointed Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith should be wearing a camouflage uniform or whether an Opposition politician was wrong to "fat shame" an admittedly large and overweight woman. It seems that the editors and managers of our local media believe that these type of stories are far more important than our neighbor literally falling apart.


No electricity has meant no water. No electricity has meant no gasoline for cars. No electricity has meant no refrigeration and food spoiling which means that people are going hungry. No electricity has meant no telephones, no cell phones, no internet, nothing. If you have an emergency you cannot call either the police or an ambulance! Think about it! No electricity has meant that the airports are shut down.  You can't leave the country even if you wanted to! No electricity has meant that the hospitals cannot function and that people are going to die. No electricity has meant that ATMs and credit cards can't work and the banks can't function. So, if you had all your cash in the bank six days ago you will be flat broke today. No electricity has meant that hungry people are resorting to looting. There is a complete breakdown of law and order. And no electricity has meant that there is no water!!


I could go on, but you get the point. This is a very serious crisis. And if you thought that we had a refugee crisis before this happened just wait for a little while  ... its going to get worse!!


So? Isn't this a serious news story? But you'd never guess this by reading the local newspapers or listening to the local radio or television stations. Why? I have my suspicions ... all of them as ugly as they ought to be unnecessary. And frankly, they are all related to the media's not so hidden support for the Rowley led Government. You see, any proper reporting of the crisis next door to us will by implication show how absolutely stupid and uncaring was the Government's rather obvious support for the Maburro regime and its so-called "neutrality" which wasn't neutral at all!!


But this story won't go away. And people will continue to die. And the editors and managers of our local media will continue to try and ignore it and pretend that they are politically neutral when they so obviously are not! And that's the real sin here!

WHAT DON'T WE UNDERSTAND AND WHY?

When I was a young lawyer a very learned Queen's Counsel who was teaching me the art of cross-examination told me something that I have never forgotten. He said "when a man says something that you don't understand 98 percent of the time it is because he doesn't WANT you to understand; 2 percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is talking about."  Over the decades I have found this piece of advice to be eerily accurate.


So, I now find myself seeing and hearing about a lot of things going on in this little twin island republic and I find myself  not understanding why they have happened or not understanding the explanations. Let's take a few examples:


First of all, there was the question of Dr. Rowley's famous visit to China. We were first told that he was going to China to attend a conference of world leaders. When it turned out that there was no such conference we were told that he had been invited to go by the Chinese Government. But the Chinese very politely let the world know that this wasn't exactly true. it seems that Dr. Rowley had invited himself. But why??  What exactly was achieved by that visit that benefitted T&T? No real answer has ever come down.


Then we were told that Dr. Rowley and his Minister of Everything Stewart Young went to Australia and ordered some boats for the Coast Guard. But no reason has ever been given as to why the Prime Minister and his Minister sidekick felt it necessary to go all the way to Australia from China in order to buy some boats and bypass the normal tendering process as required by the laws of Trinidad & Tobago relating to procurement. But why?? Again, no real answer has come down. Why? What is it that Dr. Rowley and company don't want us to know or understand? There are a host of other questions that arise from this episode, but hopefully you get the point.


Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. The latest piece of news is that Dr. Rowley has picked himself up and gone to California for certain medical checks when all reports indicate that they could be done here in T&T. Why? all of the Prime Minister's expenses for him and his entourage for this trip will be met by the State. But the trip doesn't make sense. Why did he have to go all the way to California? Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that it was absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister to go to the United States for a medical check up or treatment did he have to go all the way to California for that? Couldn't it have been done in, say, Miami or even New York? What or who is there in California that makes this trip so necessary? Why? It just doesn't make sense! And by the way, for the record, I certainly don't begrudge the Prime Minister seeking first class medical advice. Its just that from all the reports that I have seen none suggest that such advice was not available here!


Look: there are a whole set of other things that simply don't make sense ... the Tobago ferries, for example. Another matter that doesn't make sense is the Prime Minister's obvious reluctance to trigger section 137 of the Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings of the Chief Justice. Allow me a moment to explain why I think that these proceedings are necessary. The office of Chief Justice is one of the highest and most important offices in the land. It ought to be obvious that the office holder ... whoever he or she may be ... should not have nay suspicions of wrong doing hovering over his/her head. At the moment there are some very ugly suspicions that are hovering over the head of the current Chief Justice. They need to be cleared up ... one way or the other. If he is guilty of any or all of them then he ought to be removed from office. If he is innocent of the charges then he ought to be cleared completely. But the only way to achieve either result is by triggering the impeachment process and having a trial. What is wrong with that? Indeed, that was the thinking behind the Law Association's call for impeachment. The Chief Justice deserves ... needs ... a trial if only to clear his name. It is not in the country's interests that the trial does not take place. Indeed, if it doesn't then those ugly and unnecessary suspicions will just grow and grow. Already some people are making scandalous and unrepeatable comments about why Dr. Rowley will not trigger section 137. And if he continues to refuse those ugly suspicions will simply continue to grow and further divide an already badly divided society.


So, I go back to the beginning: what exactly is it in all of these matters that Messrs. Rowley, Young & Co. don't want us to understand and why don't they want us to understand?  Because I'll tell you this: whatever you might think of them they aren't stupid. They understand well what they are saying and doing. They just don't want us to understand. Why?