A Systems Failure in Trinidad and Tobago

The problems plaguing Trinidad and Tobago are systems problems. Systems thinking is a separate field, evolved from handling complexity and problems that cannot be resolved through simplifying. It looks at variables and connections/interrelationships, and looks at where small iterations or influence can affect meaningful change. Trinidad and Tobago suffers from many such complex problems, but each of those problems are connected to the other so you can see that there are systems nested within systems, or sitting parallel to the systems. Complexity and chaos is the result. It is not helped by corruption, lack of critical thinking and downright stupidity. The last 10 years of political governance is a prime example.

Let us deal with national security. I note that Roger Alexander is already mouthing off. Nothing surprising there. His internal character was on full display during his television programme – a bully, lack of critical thinking skills (and probably qualifications), and resorting to the "brute squad" mentality of the Randolph Burroughs era. It seems he did not learn anything from Gary Griffith. Shutting your mouth and go about your job quietly. I trust that we will soon see police officers wearing and using body cams and full investigations for all these extrajudicial killings.

Firearms users licences – I suppose soon we can load up the "matic" and empty the clip. There is a disturbing shortsighted thinking coming from the newly installed Prime Minister. She seems bent (from her actions so far) in following the failed USA (Ministry of homeland security? Please!). The solution is not more guns, but the opposite. Statistics and real-world examples abound where countries that do not have armed citizens are safer. In fact, many of these countries do not even have armed police. What we need is more effective policing. Over the last 20 years I have written that the purported solve rate of serious crimes is 6%. This itself is a misleading figure because the robustness of evidence presented to the court for a conviction remains at 1% of that 6%. This means that the police are either not trained sufficiently to gather forensic evidence in a robust manner sufficient enough to satisfy the court and rules of evidence, or that the police force remains generally lazy and prone to shortcuts and corruption. The public sphere is inundated with cases of police officers taking bribes to forego prosecution. There is also a notable lack of will to take disciplinary action against police officers by its leadership.

In terms of the economy, the entire countries know that we are in for a hard time. Clearly, the country is bankrupt or nearly so. Billions have gone missing with no explanation. The former minister of finance was an arrogant pompek. There is more than one prima facie case of corruption sitting in his lap. Steps must be taken to diversify income streams, decentralise public services, build/repair the decades-neglected infrastructure, find ways to bring wages to match living costs without further bankrupting the country. Reduce national debt, manage the collection of income tax, and put a curb on imports. A harsh measure, I know, but a temporary solution.

Remove egos from all members of the new government. Accept criticism, chew on it and digest it. It is a sign of maturity and growth to do this. Take on-board that you do not know everything, and members of the public may have solutions also. You are not expected to have all the answers. But you can seek answers from those with the correct expertise. In doing so, do not use it as a means of corrupting the process, by hiring unqualified family and friends.

Milking those on death's door

This is an open letter to the Minister of Health.

A friend of mine needs open-heart surgery. This has been already been paid for by the Ministry of Health and the services for surgery passed to Caribbean Heart Care, a private supplier of health services to the Ministry of Health.

What baffles me is why Caribbean Hard Care is further charging my friend $10,000 privately for the use of a cell saver machine, to be used during surgery to recycle the patient’s own blood.

 

Fast Facts on cell saver machines:

·         Patients end up with healthier blood when their own blood is recycled and given back to them during heart surgery.

·         The more units of banked blood a patient received, the more red cell damage researchers found.

·         The damage renders the cells less able to squeeze through a body’s smallest capillaries and deliver oxygen to tissues.

·         Blood is recycled using machine called a cell saver, which cleanses it and separates out the red blood cells to return to patient.

·         Recycling own blood costs less than using banked blood.

 

This is clearly – and without any shame – an effort to ‘milk’ more money out of the patient. I have a number of problems with this.

1.    Contractually, if Caribbean Heart Care cannot provide the full services to the Ministry of Health, then it has no business accepting contracts. The opportunity should be given to other entities to bid for the opportunity to provide full services necessary for the surgery.

2.    If Caribbean Heart Care must charge extra ‘service charges’ on top of the price quoted to the Ministry of Health, then this should be made plain to both the patient and the Ministry of Health prior to the surgery being scheduled.

3.    Once the surgery scheduled, it is prejudicial to the patient to be asked to pay such a huge sum on short notice. Most patients who rely on the Ministry of Health to cover the surgery costs are on low income – else they would have done the surgery privately. To fork over $10,000 on short notice is Caribbean Heart Care’s unconscionable opportunity to take advantage of a life and death situation to fatten its own coffers.

Sadly, this appears to be a new development in the practice of providing surgery from Caribbean Heart Care. I say this because in 2017, a close relative also had open heart surgery from the self-same heart Care and there were no additional costs. One can only wonder what changed in the past 5 years.

The big question remains – is the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health aware of Caribbean Heart Care charging these extra ‘fees’? If the answer to this is yes, why is this allowed to happen? Why does the ministry not cover the full fees, considering that most of the victims held to ransom by Caribbean Heart Care cannot afford to pay these extortionate sums?

I look forward to a full explanation from the Minister of Health, but you will forgive me for not holding my breath lest I end up 6 feet under.

Where Israel Rajah-Khan went wrong… Again!

I note with interest, coupled with amusement, Mr Israel Rajah-Khan’s attempted chastisement of attorney Brian Baig (Express, 30 June 2022 –https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/vulgar-claims-against-legal-system/article_51b5cda2-f801-11ec-858e-33817f45e547.html)

Mr Baig has given a semi-appropriate response (Express, 2 July 2022 – https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/article_bc6124ba-f998-11ec-aea9-27ee4e1a5bd3.html ).

Taking Mr Rajah-Khan’s article first:

Mr Rajah-Khan apparently takes umbrage over Mr Baig’s highlighting that several prominent Indo-Trinidadians are or were before the courts on charges, but were/are unsuccessfully prosecuted by the PNM. He then went on to point out that the charges are proffered by the DPP, and heard before an independent judiciary.

Where Mr Rajah-Khan obviously went wrong is that the evidence does not stack up on this position. In the latest Privy Council’s judgment, John Henry Smith and another v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others (2022) UKPC 28 (Smith judgment), the Law Lords at the Privy Council certainly made a mockery of Mr Rajah-Khan’s position. In other words, they delivered a serious ‘calpet’ on Mr Rajah-Khan’s perspective.

In paragraph 2 of the judgment, the judges clearly pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau (ACIB) was established within the Ministry of the Attorney General under then AG John Jeremie. This makes it a political entity. It is this political entity which brought charges under the Piarco 1-4 cases. For Mr Rajah-Khan to say “I can state categorically that there is not a single criminal case in this country whereby a political party prosecuted—be it PNM, NAR or UNC Partnership” demonstrates that he did not read the judgment at all!

In the Smith judgment, the Privy Council judges also clearly pointed out that the judiciary was not independent in any way whatsoever! Not only was there bias on the part of Sherman (Shermie) McNicolls, he was financially and in other ways beholden to John Jeremie, a PNM politically appointed Attorney General!

Note that under the Integrity in Public Life Act, Basdeo Panday an Indo-Trinidadian, remains the ONLY person charged, despite hundreds of others over the past 10 or more years failing to file the mandatory records. And of course, the Privy Council also ruled that under Sherman McNicolls, there was apparent bias in Mr Panday’s trial due to the political obligation Shermie placed himself when accepting financial and other benefits from the AG, John Jeremie. The Smith judgment merely confirms what was raised and proven 12 years or so before!

Additionally, Mr Rajah-Khan states “All citizens, regardless of race, class or creed, if charged with a criminal offence, must receive a fair trial”. Of course, this is what should happen. We all know that what should happen is different from what does happen. Shermie proved that over and over. I have long blogged about his corruption. That much is not in dispute, and is in the public domain if anyone should choose to do a little research. Given that he was the Chief Magistrate, this makes it all the more appalling!

The Smith judgment also showed that High Court and the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago applied less-than-stellar reasoning. One can only wonder why the population is reluctant to turn to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final appeal court, given that some of its judges come from the same pool… But that is a story for another day.

Mr Rajah-Khan also mentions “two other prominent East Indian attorneys’ names were mentioned in his sordid letter but their criminal cases are before the court, and thus sub judice, and it would be unethical to mention their names in my letter.”

The sub judice rules apply when mentioning something currently before the court will influence the outcome of the trial, or in other words, prevent a fair trial. Surely the names of the attorneys so charged are in the public domain? Their matters will be listed on the court website. Thus, why would mentioning their names prevent a fair trial?

Mr Baig himself made a tactical error in his response to Mr Rajah-Khan. Instead of addressing the issues Mr Rajah-Khan brought up, he misdirected himself to point out a 19-point list of PNM corruption, which have not been prosecuted. That may be relevant to political point-scoring but fails to address the core issues. If Mr Baig wished to set Mr Rajah-Khan right, refute the points he made, not introduce new tangential issues.

I urge Mr Rajah-Khan to be more circumspect in voicing his opinion. After all, he has 43 years’ experience at the Criminal Bar.

That Hackshaw file

If the Express’ reports are correct, that there “were over 180 deposits amounting to $1.8 million spread over 18 RBC Royal Bank accounts, with more funds in an account at Scotiabank and the Unit Trust Corporation”, then DPP Gaspard is absolutely correct in requesting the file for review. [Express 29/06/2020]

Think about it logically – simple mathematics shows that the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) deliberately kept deposits under $10,000. Why? Deposits of over $10,000 attract attention as to the source of the funds. Clearly, the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) wanted to avoid undue attention, which indicates that the depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) ‘knew’ there might be questions to be answered. Pretty unusual when you consider that some of the money were given in cheques in sums way above $10,000.

I am pretty sure that the ordinary man on the street would have a very difficult time converting/depositing a cheque of over $10,000 in partial increments of under $10,000. Did Hackshaw’s depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) get special benefits from the bank by virtue of Hackshaw being a high-ranking police officer?

A further discrepancy comes from Police Commissioner Gary Griffith, who, with his usual blustering style, seeks to obfuscate the issue further. On June 8 he claimed that Hackshaw’s file would be sent to the DPP, then some days later claimed that the file would not be sent until all investigations are completed – the further investigation coming not from the police service, but from an independent organisation, the PCA. One can only wonder at Gary’s agenda. There seems to be an institutionalised “protection” racket going on, a police brotherhood intent on protecting their own.

Another question that comes to my mind is why is Hackshaw’s depositor (and I am not saying it is Hackshaw) depositing money into Hackshaw’s personal accounts, money contributed by private businesses that “were donations given to him by businesses to assist with police functions”. Surely such money should have been given to the coordinators and planners of those police functions?

The Hackshaw situation raises more questions than answers, and in the interest of transparency needs to be fully aired – in public – to the satisfaction of all that there is no jiggery-pokery going on. And if Hackshaw is found to be misbehaving in public office, then I hope that the full brunt of the law falls on him, retirement or not.

Incursions into impropriety have begun

I see that the first ‘incursions into impropriety’ have begun. Those small incursions that chip away at the rights of the individuals, with the approval of members of society who will never think that those incursions will turn against them later on. It is the beginning into the slide on a slippery slope, where people give up rights to authority to ‘feel safe’ but those rights are never ‘returned’. Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa are some places that comes to mind.

The police ‘raid’ on the office of the Express newspaper is the perfect example of rights being trampled upon by authority figures. Freedom of expression (section 4(i)), and freedom of the press (section 4(k)) are both guaranteed rights under our Constitution. Now that the police can no longer bring charges under the Sedition Act, they are going for the vague charge of “Tipping Off” found in section 51 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000.

A quick review of the Act showed that the charge of “Tipping off” is designed to prevent prejudice at trial for a person charged under the Act. Not to seize evidence which might prove detrimental to the person under investigation, for the purpose of withholding that evidence. No one has been charged in this matter. There is a possible defence under section 49 – a person, acting in a professional capacity and reporting through the relevant supervisory personnel at their workplace, is exempted from this charge.

A point to note: – there is no similar charge or section in the U.K.’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Instead, it prohibits authorities from breaching fundamental human rights even in the course of their investigations.

Coming back to the actual search and seizure of material at The Express’ office, there will of course be judicial review of the actions of the police, as ordered by the High Court. The court will decide on the balance between rights of the police under their investigative powers, and the rights of the press with respect to its freedom of expression and public interest in what was published.

The fact that the search was conducted under the authority of the very police officer suspected of and under investigation for financial impropriety is an important factor. Under what conditions and what evidence was presented for such a search warrant to be signed off and who was the judicial officer who gave authority to the warrant? These are questions that have to be answered. Search warrants cannot be granted – or rather, should not be granted – willy-nilly. There must be just cause, and evidence presented, for fundamental rights to be breached. The right to privacy is one such fundamental right.

Of course, we know that some judicial officers (magistrates and judges) merely rubber stamp the requests by police, without conducting due diligence questioning. It is these scenarios where the slippery slope comes into view. Eternal vigilance is demanded from those who live in this society.

Rowley’s duty to act on CJ issue

I am glad Israel Rajah-Khan is keeping alive, the issue of the Chief Justice’s (CJ) alleged misbehaviour in office and the Prime Minister’s (PM) silence in that matter. It is not surprising that the PM is silent though. Allegations have since turned up that he was personally involved in the same mess at the same time as the CJ. To probe the CJ might well be shooting himself.

Legally, it appears that the PM has no choice but to refer the matter to the President for a tribunal to be appointed to carry out the enquiry. But as in all Third World countries, leaders play at leading and don’t fully understand that they are no longer petulant school boys. It is why the various governments play at following the Westminster parliamentary system.

In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995), the court ruled that the relevant minister could not fetter himself by not exercising his discretion to follow the law. So too in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968). Further, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in Sharma v. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors (Trinidad and Tobago) [2006] UKPC 57, at paragraph 27 Lord Bingham clearly says:

“the court was, however, right to say that if the Prime Minister received a potentially credible report of serious misconduct by the Chief Justice, he had a duty to act and could not simply ignore it.” [Emphasis added].

Once cannot help but wonder had the CJ been of a different ethnicity would the PM had already triggered section 137? The PNM certainly went after Sat Sharma with all the enthusiasm of a Rottweiler going after a roti.

The true power in section 137 of the Constitution is not that the PM has the authority not to act, but that he MUST act and let the chips fall where they may. Once the CJ’s matter was referred to him, his duty was clear. Even if the PM does not want to act, he must give reasons why and those reasons should be rooted in law: Secretary of State for Education v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014.

But in the Third World country that is Trinidad, anything can happen and usually does. I can only hope someone takes this through a judicial review and clarify the legal duty of the PM, once and for all.

More questions than answers

There are several matters that are on my mind following recent reports in the local newspapers.

1. After seeing a report about a “fake police station” and the ‘prisoners’ therein, my thoughts went to the healthy (or unhealthy, depending on your point of view) relationship between the police and Venezuelan/Columbian females, going back decades. One can only guess why raids on brothels require police to wear masks… afraid of being identified as clients by the arrestees? I also noticed that the numerous past reports indicate that it is mainly police officers who have these women as ‘guests’ in their homes.
2. The ‘Wealth Bill’ is another matter that gives me unease. Despite ‘reassurances’ by the Attorney General, there has never been a law enacted that has never been abused when the potential to do so is there. In other words, the potential for abuse is a certainty of abuse. Every time. Often in creative ways.
3. The Prime Minister, and indirectly the President, are sitting on their hands with respect to the most important Constitutional issue (arguably) in the entire history of the country since Independence from England. I refer to the matter of the Chief Justice (CJ) who has allegations against him amounting to serious misconduct in office if they are true. There is a duty, both legally and morally, for the Prime Minister to trigger an investigation via section 137 of the Constitution, by referring the matter to the President for an independent tribunal to carry out a proper investigation.

Instead, we have now become the only country in the entire history of the Commonwealth, to be in this position. But oh, how swift was the PNM in making the same type of recommendation against Sat Sharma, a former ‘Indian’ CJ, when there were allegations against him! This surely makes race a factor in the apathy of the Prime Minister.

But let’s put race aside. Can it be that the Prime Minister is afraid of being caught in a sting regarding the issue of cavorting with the CJ? The present CJ acknowledges that he approached the PM to influence the Trinidad & Tobago Housing Development Corporation (HDC), an Agency of the Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, and which the Prime Minster was formerly in charge of under the Manning stewardship. What else would an investigation reveal? That seems to be the million-dollar question.

1. The pace of murders occurring is accelerating. The ability of the police to detect and solve these is decelerating. And apparently, never the twain shall meet…

Can we get answers from those in charge please?