State of Emergency Lacking Constitutional Validity

It has been two weeks since the People’s Partnership Government declared a state of emergency and citizens still remain in the dark as to the reasons for having our constitution suspended and thus being deprived of our fundamental democratic and constitutional rights. As per section 1 (9) of our constitution “within three days of making the proclamation, the President shall deliver to the Speaker for presentation to the House of Representatives a statement setting out the specific grounds on which the decision to declare the existence of a state of public emergency was based”.

Mr. Sandy in his contribution to the debate on the motion to extend the state of emergency for three months repeated the Attorney General’s claim that a major crisis was averted and that there was an immediate threat and endangerment to public safety. To date however, both Mr. Ramlogan and Mr. Sandy have refused to give this nation the “specific grounds” on which this state of emergency was called. In a most ingenious way, the Minister of National Security resorted to the cover of “matters of national security” as his reasons for not telling the citizens of this country why exactly a state of emergency was called.

The refusal of the Attorney General and Minister of National Security to inform this country as to the “specific grounds” for having declared a state of emergency does not seem to be in accordance with our constitution. The constitution is quite clear the President must tell our Parliament the “SPECIFIC GROUNDS” on which the state of emergency was called. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that if the state of emergency pertains to a matter of national security that the government can withhold information from citizens. As a matter of fact that entire notion proffered by the Attorney General and Minister of National Security is vulgarly nonsensical as the very purpose of having the provision for a state of emergency in our constitution is to deal with matters of national security in whatever form they may arise, be it natural disaster, disease pandemic or an attack on our democratic institutions by way of a coup.

In seeking to allay justifiable concerns as to the governments declaration and handling of the state of emergency, during his debate Mr. Sandy recapped all the previous state of emergencies our country has been under. What Mr. Sandy did not say in our Parliament as he ought to have, is of all our previous states of emergencies the citizens of this country knew exactly why we had a state of emergency. This is the first time in the history of our country that a state of emergency has been called and citizens have not been appraised as to the ‘specific grounds’ for declaring such. Therefore, what this People’s Partnership Government has done is set a dangerous precedent where any government in the future can call a state of emergency to further their agenda, be it genuine, political or even oppressive and all that government would have to do to circumvent the constitutional and democratic rights of citizens of this country is use the cloak of “matters of national security” and thus avoid accountability to the electorate.

Whether one is in support of the ‘reasoning’ behind this government’s state of emergency or against it, one must take note of this dangerous precedent that has been set by the People’s Partnership Government and its implications for our democratic survival. It seems foolhardy that in order to get a temporary relief from crime because of the abject failure of our security services that we should allow such a colossal undermining of our constitutional mechanisms. Quite frankly I’m not sure which frightens me the most, the government’s reckless manipulation of our constitutional apparatus or citizen’s ignorance to the implications of government’s actions.

Trinbagonians would do well to heed the words of Netsanet Belay, Director of Policy Research at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation regarding our state of emergency, “The State of Emergency, inappropriate legislation and broad implementation of a curfew represent a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined both in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and throughout international human rights law. After just two weeks, Trinbagonian citizens risk signing away civic freedoms that have taken forty-nine years of hard struggle and nation-building to win. Persistent crime and personal insecurity are very real threats to many Caribbean nations and need to be taken seriously. Nevertheless the trend we are witnessing across the Caribbean region of using disproportionate security-based measures will only weaken trust in state institutions and could lead to a virtual close down of space for citizens and civil society participation.”

Anand Ramlogan The Transformer

I am without a doubt convinced that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is a transformer, our own local version of 'Bumble Bee'. As the current Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is in his glee, using non-bailable law such as the Anti Gang Act to detain alleged criminals. But this was the same Anand Ramlogan who wrote a long diatribe against the anti kidnapping bill and it's consequences re: it being a non bailable offence. Now Anand is singing a totally different tune. But you see unlike most Trinidadians my memory eh short! I WILL HIT YOU FOR SIX RAMLOGAN. SEE THE FOLLOWING TRINIDAD GUARDIAN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY NONE OTHER, THE INCUMBENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAND RAMLOGAN ON THE 1ST AUGUST 2004!

"Manning’s knee-jerk crime plan" - by ANAND RAMLOGAN (Before being appointed Attorney General and suffering from a delusional swelling of the male part!)

PM Manning unveiled his great crime plan last week. It was greeted with a series of brutal murders and demands for “less talk, more action.” The headline grabber was the “no bail for kidnappers” strategy.

This knee-jerk legislative reaction to what is admittedly a frightening problem is one that must be cautiously studied. The erosion of human rights and the enlargement of State power (that can later be misused and abused) normally take place in the height of a crisis, with the full support of the people, because rational thought is overwhelmed by panic and fear. (In 2004 who would have thought that Anand in one of his editorials to the Guardian was simply describing the state in which he would have the country when he is appointed Attorney General. These words adequately describes the People's Partnership Government's state of emergency)

At present, kidnapping is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Though it is a bailable offence, magistrates have the power to refuse bail under the Bail Act, because of the seriousness of the offence and its prevalence in society.

Carlos Manickchand and his gang were, for example, refused bail, as have many others who have been charged for kidnapping. Persons charged for car theft and drug offences have routinely been refused bail by magistrates.

A magistrate can set a high bail that is beyond the reach of the accused person, and he would not be out the following morning. We see this happening every day in our courts, so why all the fuss now? (Why all the fuss indeed Anand? Why did your government call a state of emergency to detain criminals when you knew before you even became Attorney General that a magistrate can set a high bail if need be?)

If persons charged with kidnapping offences are being released on bail too frequently, then perhaps our magistrates are setting bail too low, and the Chief Justice needs to issue some guidelines. (I GUESS THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH OUR MAGISTRATES MAY HAVE BEEN SETTING BAIL TOO LOW FOR)

Surely, the seriousness and prevalence of the offence must weigh heavily in the magistrate's mind and tilt the scales towards imposition of onerous bail conditions in appropriate cases.

A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you. It’s almost as if you're presumed guilty, rather than innocent. In effect, politicians could use it to remove and incarcerate political opponents from society; police officers could use it to get rid of a troublesome boyfriend or husband to access a “slack” wife or girlfriend. (YET STILL HE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT UNDER A StATE OF EMERGENCY THE POLICE AND ARMY WILL NOT ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY, AND TO ADD TO THAT HE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CLAIMED COULD BE DONE, HE IS PRESUMING THE GUILT OF ALL THOSE THUS DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

There are very few non-bailable offences in our law. These are: murder, treason, piracy or hijacking, and any offence for which the penalty is death. A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you.

It could easily be misused and abused, because the judiciary would have no power to grant bail, and the ultimate power to deprive a citizen of his liberty is given to the police, who can charge on the flimsiest basis.

It places the liberty of citizens in the hands of the police, because once someone is charged for a non-bailable offence, he/she would be amputated from society and incarcerated like a convicted criminal.

Pressing the right buttons, a drug dealer could easily manipulate the police service to get rid of competitors, so that he could control their turf.

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.(ANAND RAMLOGAN, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND AUNTY KAMLA MADE THE VERY SAME CAR THEFT, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES AS PER THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE ANTI GANG ACT WHICH YOUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING CREDIT FOR HAVING LAID IN PARLIAMENT? YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND KAMLA TRYING TO FOOL US WITH THIS KNEE-JERK STATE OF ABUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? OH SHUCKS....AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY?)

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.

The trauma inflicted on a victim, whose home is robbed while his/her children are tied and beaten to near death, is not any less than that of a parent whose child is kidnapped. It's no use making qualitative distinctions in the effects of serious crimes.

It is a serious thing for the State to deny an accused bail in circumstances where the backlog of criminal cases in the magistrates’ court system means that an innocent man could be jailed for several years before he is even given an opportunity to prove his innocence. (YET STILL YOU AND GIBBS BOASTING OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF STUPIDITY ....OH SHUCKS AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY. ARE THESE ALLEGED CRIMINALS GOING TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE MR. TRANSFORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL?)

By the time he wins his case, his whole life is ruined. The main weapon in the fight against crime is an efficient and expeditious system of criminal justice. (NOTICE IN 2004 ANAND RAMLOGAN WAS NOT ESPOUSING NOR WAS HE PROMOTING ANY STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

Part of what motivates kidnappers on bail to commit more crimes is the long delay in trying and convicting them. We are all falling into a trap cleverly set by a clueless PNM. (SEEMS THE ONLY TRAP WE FELL FOR IS VOTING FOR A DECEITFUL LYING GOVERNMENT)

The problem is not the lack of laws, but rather the lack of penetrating policing and enforcement of the existing laws.

“No bail for kidnappers” will deflect the nation's attention from the incompetence of the Government, the impotence of the police, as the spotlight once again shifts to Panday. If he refuses to support this amendment, the nation would be so busy “ponging” and “cussin'” him, that no one will have time to focus on the real issue of the Government's inability to deal with crime. (I WONDER WHOSE INCOMPETENCE ANAND RAMLOGAN IS CURRENTLY DEFLECTING? OH GOSH THEY CUSS PANDAY, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU CUSSING ROWLEY FOR CRITICIZING YOUR ILLEGAL STATE OF EMERGENCY? EH ANDAND?)

The mad rush to make new laws every time we have a problem is a reflection of the idle and bankrupt intellectual state of the PNM. The unthinking rush to embrace and welcome this “no bail policy” for kidnapping might be a reflection of our desperation and helplessness.

There's no point in making new laws when the present ones aren't properly utilised. (NOR IS THERE ANY POINT IN CALLING A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEN LAWS SUCH AS THE ANTI GANG ACT, FIRE ARMS ACT AND THE FINANCIAL ACT AREN'T BEING PROPERLY UTILISED)

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2004-08-01/ramlogan.html

State of Emergency An Abuse of The Constitution

I do not support a state of emergency and the suspension of my democratic and constitutional rights just so the police can do routine police raids. This state of emergency by the People's Partnership Government is ill advised and an abuse of our constitution. The state of emergency has yielded nothing to suggest it is worthwhile, arresting a few hundred persons and seizing a few grams of weed and cocaine does not justify the suspension of our constitution. Denying citizens of their constitutional and democratic rights is a serious issue and is not something that should be done flippantly. I heard the Attorney General justify the state of emergency because of the expected rise in violence that would have occurred because of a $22 million TT drug bust. My response to that is so what? In 2007 the US Justice Department made a drug bust of $45 million US dollars, TT $289 million and to date there has been no declaration of a state of emergency in the United States of America, a country which has more guns than T&T in any given state due to their constitution granting their citizens the right to bare arms!

Mr. Martin Daly made a very valid point on TV6 news on Tuesday night, one does not call a state of emergency to seize six guns, a few grams of illegal drugs and a hundred or so people. Even if I am to be generous and give them credit for finding to date just under ten fire arms with some ammunition and the few grams of drugs (no major drug or arms bust as of day three, no big drug financier arrested), is it that the hundred or so persons arrested are all going to be charged collectively for these few guns, ammunition and drugs? I ask because the government is beating their chest in triumph and claiming success in arresting/detaining these people, but has any of the legal luminaries in this country asked what crime these people have committed? Is it that once you have been held by the police under a farcical state of emergency you are automatically guilty? Have any of these men been taken before a court of law, successfully and judicial tried and convicted for a crime that will see them be locked away for a very long time? And if they have not been charged and tried by a court of law why is the government claiming victory? Is the government preempting the conviction of these men who have been detained? Is that legal and constitutional? Does anyone not find it strange that under a state of emergency where the government has the authority to go after any and every criminal that it is only men being loaded into the police vehicles? Are we a nation where it is only the male homo sapien that commits crime? If that is the case then our country is certainly replete with research material for any discerning anthropologist.

What is even more worrying is the fact that there was no need for a state of emergency when our Parliament inclusive of both Government and Opposition members passed in Parliament the Anti Gang Legislation which gives the police the authority to adequately address the crime situation in T&T without calling a state of emergency and depriving law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. Some of the police's authority under the act include but are not limited too :-

* The authority to arrest without a warrant any person he has reasonable cause to believe is a gang member or has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence under this Act.

* The authority to enter with a warrant issued by a magistrate any dwelling house if he has reasonable cause to believe a gang member will be found in that dwelling house.

* The authority to enter "without" a warrant any place or premises not used as a dwelling house and search the same if he has reasonable cause a gang member will be found in such place or premises

* Notwithstanding any law to the contrary a police officer may detain without a warrant for a period not exceeding 24 hours any person who he reasonably suspects having committed an offense under this Act

* If a senior officer has reason to believe that detention of a person without charge is necessary to preserve evidence relating to an offence or to obtain such evidence by questioning the detained person the senior officer may apply to a magistrate for a detention order not exceeding 144 hours (6 days).

The sad part about this entire fiasco is the Opposition the main body responsible for keeping the government in check seemed to have been asleep on the job. However I was heartened to see Dr. Rowley finally espouse what I have been saying in my personal capacity for the past few days, that this state of emergency was not needed, is excessive and just simply does not make sense when we have the necessary legislation in place for the police to deal with the criminal element. True to form the Honourable Prime Minister has immediately criticized Dr. Rowley's claims saying the Anti Gang Legislation could not have been used by the government to carry out the current exercises under the state of emergency as the act is specifically geared towards 'gangs' and gang members. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is simply a case of the Prime Minister not only being pedantic with legal jargon but also insulting the intelligence of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. According to Cambridge's Online dictionary one of the definitions for a gang is "a group of criminals who work together". It's definition for a gangster is "a member of an organized group of criminals". What part of these definitions do not apply to the criminals operating in the various hot spots in T&T? They work together and consort with each other, they have a sophisticated communication network that includes BBming and texting, and they are well organized in the execution of their illicit activities. It therefore stands to reason that the Anti Gang Act was fully capable of being utilized to carry out the current operations of the security forces, more importantly the police service and not the army!

In addition the Anti Gang Act further states "For the purpose of this Act, it shall not be necessary to show that a particular gang, possesses, acknowledges or is known by a particular name, insignia, flag, means of recognition, secret signal or code, creed, belief, structure, leadership or command structure, method of operation or criminal enterprise, concentration or speciality, membership, age or other qualification, initiation rites, geographical or territorial situs, boundary or location, or other unifying mark, manner, protocol or method of expressing or indicating its membership when the gang's existence can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other admissible evidence, but any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate the existence of or membership in a gang shall be admissable in any action or proceedings brought under this ACT!" In the Act a gang member is stated as "a person who belongs to a gang, or a person who knowingly acts in capacity of an agent for an accessory to, or voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity.....". The act further states that "gang-related activity means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit, or undertaking in relation to any of the offences listed in the First Schedule acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorized, requested or ratified.

What all of this means is all the state has to do is prove one has committed an offence or engages in "gang-related activity" as is listed in the First Schedule of the Anti Gang Act and you can be convicted under this legislation as a gang member once you commit a gang related offence''! Some of the gang-related activity in the First Schedule are but not limited to :-

* Possession of imitation firearms in pursuance of any criminal offence

* Larceny of a motor vehicle

* Arson

* Receiving stolen goods

* Possession of bullet-proof vest, firearm or ammunition for benefit of gang

* Demanding money with menaces

* Murder

* Shooting or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, unlawful wounding

* Robbery, robbery with aggravation, robbery with violence

* Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

* Possession and use of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life

* Possession of firearm or ammunition without licence certificate or permit

* Trafficking a dangerous drug or being in possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking

* Rape & grievous sexual assault

* Kidnapping & Kidnapping for ransom

With the above in mind I cannot fathom nor understand how our Prime Minister, our head of government, can publicly state that the Anti Gang Act could not have been used to deal with escalating crime situation which would have seen the police carrying out the very duties they are currently carrying out while our constitution and our democratic rights remained intact. I am very concerned by the fact that we had valid Parliamentary legislation in place to be used by the security services in the full operation of our constitution and rather than use this available legislation and the resources available to it to mobilize the police service in executing their duties, the government instead chooses to adopt what is known internationally as one of the most drastic acts a government can ever perpetuate against it's own citizens, a state of emergency. What is even more worrying is that our Head of State the President does not seem to have the necessary legal advisory team in place to review present legislation etc, which ought to be utilized to deal with a situation before calling a state of emergency.

Why is the government so hell bent on justifying this state of emergency when the results of it thus far shows that it is clearly not worthwhile as these so called 'successes' could have been achieved with a normal police raid under the Anti Gang Act? Why is it that the government seem to be engaging in a campaign of misinformation regarding the legislation and laws that were available to it as well as the capacity of said legislation to deal with the crime problem without interfering and suspending our country's constitution? No government should be allowed to flippantly call a state of emergency when all evidence suggests that they had absolutely no need too. This is a very dangerous precedent that the government has set and I'm very disappointed that the various legal luminaries and the opposition of this country all seem to have been caught with their pants down and the consequence of that lethargy of our respective political and legal vanguards may very well see the creation of a runaway government drunk on power.

Political Lip Service or Divided Government‏?

The People's Partnership Government through the Office of the Prime Minister sought to 'appear to' condemn the highly inflammatory and racially divisive remarks of Chairman of the Police Service Commission Mr. Nizam Mohammed, a condemnation that no doubt sought to act as a cooling agent to soothe the public out cry against Mr. Mohammed's unfortunate statements and 'insinuations' made in no other place than our country's highest office the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. The release from the Prime Minister's Office describes Mr. Mohammed's statements using some very strong adjectives and phrases such as "reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose." The release continued to state that Mr. Mohammed's views "run against the very grain of the philosophy that now governs this country", presumably under the stewardship of Ms. Persad-Bissessar and the new People's Partnership Government and further stated that Mr. Mohammed must be held accountable for his inflammatory comments because the mission of the government is to embrace everyone.

Arguably the release from the Prime Minister's Office used all the right words to condemn Mr. Mohammed's inflammatory remarks yet that release fell short of informing the general public whether the Government which fiercely defended the appointment of the goodly gentleman in the first place, an appointment that was vehemently opposed to by the Opposition benches, whether they will now be seeking to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment as he has demonstrated to the entire nation his unsuitability for the position. This Government should not wait on the President to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment. It was this Government that insisted Mr. Mohammed be appointed to this position and therefore they should bear the responsiblity for Mr. Mohammed's reckless conduct and not put that burden on the President. The Government's statement without action is tantamount to a parent spending enormous amounts of energy severely berating a child for a transgression yet failing to discipline said child.

Further to that one would have thought that if the Government was to issue a strongly worded reprimand such as this and in light of the potentially destabilising effect of Mr. Mohammed's comments not only to the Police Service but to the country as a whole, that they would have held an emergency caucus to address the issue and come to some form of unanimity in condemning the comments. This however does not seem to be the case because apparently before the ink can dry on the Office of the Prime Minister's release, we have contrary claims being made by two Government Ministers in the form of Dr. Roodal Moonilal and Chandresh Sharma. In the case of Mr. Sharma, he has taken a most curious stance of blaming the media for the dilemma Mr. Mohammed finds himself, saying "There are times when every media in many parts of the world carry stories that are inaccurate or carry stories that did not at all times reflect the views of the presenter, so that we must at all times listen and not shoot the messenger".

Mr. Sharma's comments are certain to raise eyebrows as Mr. Mohammed's comments were broadcast live on national television via the Parliament Channel, therefore the entire country for the most part heard for themselves the offensive remarks of Mr. Mohammed. For instance can Mr. Sharma explain what Mr. Mohammed meant when he said 'we need protection'? Who is the 'WE' that Mr. Mohammed was referring to and protection from whom? And if Mr. Mohammed is indeed the messenger from where did the message originate? Who's message is he delivering? In addition if as Mr. Mohammed claims that the police service does not represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago because there are 41% East Indians (Mr. Mohammed erroneously claimed 50%) and 39% Africans therefore the police service should not have so many Africans, can both Mr. Mohammed and Sharma explain why we have a caucasian Police Commissioner when that ethnic group is not more than 1% and the fact that the Commissioner is a foreigner to boot! In Mr. Mohammed's eyes does Commissioner Gibbs represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago? Furthermore was Commissioner Gibbs promoted through the ranks based on meritocracy? Why was he chosen over an officer like say Stephen Williams? It should be noted that it was the Government and not the PSC that was instrumental in the appointment of Mr. Gibbs as Police Commissioner. Mr. Sharma's claim that we should not shoot the messenger is directly at odds with the Government's message via the release from the Prime Minister's Office that Mr. Mohammed's statements run against the very grain of this government. How can Mr. Mohammed be a 'viable messenger' and how can his message be 'worthy of recognition' while at the same time running against the philosophy of the Government of which Mr. Sharma is a member?

Dr. Roodal Moonilal has indicated that Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate, but the question is a healthy debate about what? What was valuable of Mr. Mohammed's claims of feeling intimidated because there were too many 'Africans' in top positions of the police service, especially when Mr. Mohammed gave no credible reason for feeling intimidated other than the fact that the officers he was referring too were not of his ethnicity?. How can Dr. Moonilal say Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate when the Government's leadership via the Office of the Prime Minister has denounced Mr. Mohammed's statements as 'reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose?' Both Sharma's and Moonilal's comments run counter to the sentiments of another top Government member in the person of Mr. Warner who's comments preceded the release from the Prime Minister's Office, stating that Mr. Mohammed's remarks has hurt him deeply and has caused much embarrassment to their Government. With all these different messages emanating from the People's Partnership it's almost as if parts of this Government exists in parallel dimensions, each entity distinct from the other with it's own agenda.

It would appear from the different sentiments being expressed by this Government that it is a Government speaking with a forked tongue, a Government with multiple heads, positions and agendas. It would also seem that the various heads of this Government are ignorant to the agendas of each other. As a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago I for one am dissatisfied with the release from the Prime Minister's Office and the position of this Government with regards Nizam Mohammed's statements and tenure as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Until this Government takes collective responsibility for unleashing Mr. Mohammed on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, revoke his appointment and speak in unison as a Government, I can only conclude that the release from the Prime Minister's Office is nothing more than 'lip service', a gesture of appeasement to calm the masses while not categorically condemning Mr. Mohammed's claims. The failure of this Government to surgically remove itself from the sentiments of Mr. Mohammed can only lead one to conclude that Mr. Mohammed's comments does in fact reflect the present agenda of this Government irrespective of whether all the key players are aware of what that agenda is. ©

The Feasibility of Unfeasible Governance!

On Friday September 4, 2009 Gary Hunt revealed close to a billion dollars was spent preparing the site for the proposed Tarouba Sporting Complex. For the sake of repetition and to ensure that the point gets across, not that I doubt anyone’s ability to comprehend.....close to a billion dollars was spent ‘preparing the site for the proposed Tarouba Sporting Complex’. What that means Trinidad and Tobago is close to a billion dollars of our tax payers dollars has been spent in a time of severe economic slowdown and we have absolutely nothing to show for it not even a stadium!

When pressed by Opposition MP Hamza Rafeeq for the cost of the entire project Hunt responded “It is not feasible to give a projected cost for the entire sporting complex and all lanned infrastructure, as the under briefs for all sporting infrastructure are not yet complete." When pressed about the expected date of completion Hunt responded "It is not feasible to give the completion date of the entire sporting complex." When pressed about the annual cost of maintenance of the complex after completion Hunt responded "It is not feasible to give a projected maintenance cost of the entire sporting complex as the user brief for each component of the planned complex is not yet complete."

Am I seeing things? Am I being delusional while reading the Express? Is this a nightmare? What exactly does this government think they are running a parlour? So what the hell exactly is 'feasible' to Gary Hunt?! You mean to tell me these people spent close to a billion dollars without doing a cost analysis and feasibility study? No one in the Ministry of Finance saw it fit to do a budget for this project before any site preparation was conducted? By Hunt’s response I suppose it is a high probability that this project could cost us 80 trillion dollars and more because clearly there is no budget limit or exit strategy if the project happens to be not so feasible! And I guess that the stadium can be completed somewhere between the years 5080 and 5081 by that time my behind would have been buried and reincarnated multiple times and each time I die it is with an expression of great annoyance splashed across my face with a balsier dagger sticking out of my faint heart!

And is if to ensure that the citizens of this country are kept on the alert, heart racing as if we are watching a terrifying horror movie all alone in the wee hours of the night, a mere day after Hunt’s flabbergasting revelations of the infeasibility of him not being able to feasibly account for projects under his not so feasibly managed Ministerial portfolio, we are now hearing news of the potential collapse of the Uff Commission after 3 million has been expended on this not so feasible fiasco and which does not include the cost of Government’s legal counsel! Why? Because the Commission was never ‘gazetted’?! What crockery is that?

Every day I open the blasted ‘gazette’ and reading about so and so said this at the Uff Commission and so and so was interviewed at the Uff Commission, heck as far as I’m concerned that is enough gazetting, let the damn Commission continue! I want to know about the evidence Carl Khan has and what Calder Hart’s wife has to say about Khan’s allegations of her family ties to directors of overnight company CH Development which UDECOTT awarded the contract to build the Ministry of Legal Affairs Tower!

This government is demonstrating a most wasteful and obscene form of governance ever witnessed in this country. This is what Patrick sacrificed Dr. Rowley for? This is what the purging and political exorcism of the great PNM was about? To facilitate financial mumbo jumbo and national espionage! Perhaps Patrick should include a team of financial advisers to his team of ‘political educators’. First it is a Minister of Finance who does not know how a fixed deposit is operated, now we have a Sport Minister who can’t give any feasible responses to the projects falling under his portfolio and a 3 million dollar ungazetted Commission of Enquiry! I would seriously like to know the feasibility of having an unfeasible government mismanage an economy to the point that one day we may end up just like Guyana, a land with a history of wealth transformed to a land of despair all because of one man’s unfeasible blindness and stifling egotism! ©