The recent clash between Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander and prison supervisor Garth Guada raises a question bigger than the personal reputations of either man: who is footing the bill for Alexander’s high-powered legal defence?
The backdrop
Alexander’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, has denied allegations that he improperly met with gang leaders while serving as a police officer. They have also rejected claims that his actions were motivated by vendettas or bias. These are serious allegations, but they mostly concern Alexander’s conduct before he entered politics, while he was still in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.
Why this matters
When a sitting minister hires some of the most expensive lawyers in the country, the public has a right to ask: is this coming out of his pocket, his political party’s pocket, or ours?
-
If he is paying personally – fair enough. A minister, like anyone else, has the right to defend his reputation.
-
If his political party or donors are paying – that raises questions of political influence, but at least taxpayers are not carrying the cost.
-
If the State is paying – that is deeply problematic. Taxpayer money should never be used to defend allegations of personal misconduct that occurred before someone entered government.
The principle at stake
Public funds can be used to defend ministers only if:
-
The allegations arise directly from the lawful exercise of official ministerial duties;
-
The defence is necessary to protect the integrity of the office itself; and
-
The alleged acts were within the scope of authority.
That is clearly not the case here. Meetings with gang figures, alleged misuse of police intelligence, or personal vendettas are not “ministerial duties.”
A risk of abuse
If it turns out that Alexander’s legal bills are being covered by the government, that would amount to an improper use of public money. It would:
-
Divert funds from public service to defend private reputation;
-
Create a conflict of interest, since Alexander is now part of the government that would be funding him;
-
Undermine accountability, shielding ministers from the consequences of their personal actions.
The public deserves clarity
The question is simple: Who is paying? Until Alexander or the government answers, suspicion will remain. If taxpayers are footing the bill, the matter goes beyond politics—it becomes an issue of legality, accountability, and the misuse of public funds.
Conclusion
Alexander is entitled to a legal defence. What he is not entitled to is a taxpayer-funded shield for personal actions taken before he became a minister. The public deserves transparency. Anything less is an abuse of trust.
