Is Dr Rowley hijacking the Presidency of T&T?

After reading about nominations for the Office of President in local media, I am forced to ask, “Is the nomination for, and by extension, the Office of the President of Trinidad and Tobago being hijacked by political expediency?”

The Prime Minster Dr Keith Rowley supports the nomination of Ms Christine Kangaloo for President. His grounds are her experience a) as acting President before, and b) Senate President. Dr Rowley seems to have ignored all that is unseemly improper with such a nomination – and to which he cannot plead ignorance. I shall not be occupying my time setting it all out here when it is already in the public domain. Readers have the choice to be well-informed, or not.

Mr Israel Khan SC has accepted nomination for President.

The following are some well-known characteristics of Mr Khan:

1.    He has an enviable record of sound performance.

2.    He has contributed as an Independent Senator in his service to the country.

3.    Nobody owns Mr Khan’s tongue.  He is not scripted, somewhat unfiltered.

4.    He has a way with words – straight talking that cut to the heart of matters – causing most citizens to agree with him – only because what he says is so plain spoken and non-evasive.

5.    Owning his own tongue and being the boss of his own person, he has spoken out frankly, without filter and for the common man against perceived misdeeds by both political parties.

6.    He has spoken out on major scandals without fear or favour, as a lone voice in the legal and public domain. For example, he was the lone senior member of the legal fraternity, bold and with iron fortitude against the Chief Justice Archie debacle. He hung a banner from his Chambers that "All is not well on Knox Street” with options for the Chief Justice, “1) Resign now, 2) Answer S137 Tribunal, 3) Face criminal charge of misbehaviour (15 years jail)”.

7.    On the Vincent Nelson SC constitutional, civil and criminal imbroglio - he called out the ex-AG's advisers on the indemnity agreement with convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson to publicly come clean on their roles in the drafting of the controversial settlement.

8.    He has demonstrated that he is a fierce and tireless fighter for what is right for the grassroots public, both in an out of court.

Basically, Mr Israel Khan will kowtow to no one. He will put ‘boof’ where warranted – within a Constitutional remit of course. You will get it plain just so - ‘not sugar coated’!  Mr Khan epitomises what the country needs at this time to get the elected on both sides of the political divide to do their jobs properly.  He will pull this Nation back from the brink of collapse.

His appeal as a President is that he would bring the lived experience of ‘the man-on-the-street struggles’ to that office. 

The PNM has an opportunity to demonstrate that tribal politics will not be allowed to hijack who gets selected for Presidency and to put the greater good of the Nation at centre stage.

The Prime Minister should take lead and without hesitation change his mind by dropping Ms Kangaloo and supporting Mr Israel Khan’s nomination. I urge Dr Rowley to do the right thing. Rise above your party and leave a legacy that aids the country.

Mr Mohan Ramcharan

Birmingham, England

 

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.

Defending the indefensible

Having carefully read the text of the Prime Minister’s (PM’s) response to the Law Association’s request to reveal the legal opinion and the identity of the opinion giver, I remain marvelling at the PM’s disingenuous excuses. Let’s break it down:

First, the opinion expressed relies almost totally on Rees v Crane [1994] UKPC 4a, which is somewhat surprising considering the later case of Sharma v. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors (Trinidad and Tobago) [2006] UKPC 57:

“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].

Of course, the PM is still defending the Chief Justice (CJ), which is not his job. It is for an independent tribunal to assess the evidence, not the PM. Which is why it is surprising that the PM has stepped into the role of the independent investigator, and claims that there is no credible misconduct.

Second, the PM also insists that there is no correspondence between himself and the CJ with respect to the housing issues brought up by Miss Renne during her investigation. Again, it is not for the PM to assess any evidence, especially with himself for being involved. It is for an independent tribunal!

Third, the above also applies to the assessment of the WhatsApp messages between the CJ and Dillian Johnson. It is not for the PM to state whether or not evidence exist or does not exist. It is only after an independent investigation is done, that these questions and more will be answered in a fair and dispassionate manner.

Fourth, the PM is also forgetting the words of the Privy Council in supporting the findings of the Court of Appeal, in the matter of Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago v The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [2018] UKPC 23, that the CJ’s behaviour and actions:

“had such a negative impact on the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judiciary that they threatened to undermine the administration of justice and rule of law”.

Fifth, in supporting an independent investigation, the Court of Appeal stated clearly:

“Thus, the fair-minded and informed observer would recognise that in Trinidad and Tobago, what the Council was demanding at the time was nothing extraordinary or remarkable. It was simply what many others were also demanding, even if done by the LATT in strident and condemnatory tones and terms”.

Therefore, what is in the PM’s head may not be in the minds of the general public.

Sixth, in the matter of fairness to the CJ, the PM and all concerned parties, plus the general public, the following principle applies:

“(1) where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. (2) The standards of fairness are not immutable. They may change with the passage of time, both in the general and in their application to decisions of a particular type. (3) The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision, and this is to be taken into account in all its aspects.” [Ex p Doody, (1994)]

One can argue then that because the PM is directly involved as a potential complicit witness, he cannot be an impartial and fair decision maker, but must refer the matter to the President. In other words, he has no discretion to refuse in this matter.

To use a cricket analogy, the PM must bat in his crease, not outside it..

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.

Letter to the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago

Letter to the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago,

Dr Keith Rowley

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am wondering where is my land of ‘milk and honey’ that I was promised by your PNM predecessor, the late Mr Patrick Manning. You have not delivered on Mr Manning’s promises to this nation. There is no tangible strategy for delivering to the people, ‘the land of milk and honey’. Instead, the country is in a perfect mess and well on a highway to hell! In effect the PNM has hoodwinked this nation.

 

I write to you with fervent hope that you use the powers of your respected Office to assist my beloved country rise above on at least one major crisis it is caught in presently. In this part of my letter, I refer to the sad, sorry spectacle of the Chief Justice hanging on to his Office by the proverbial fingernails tips.

 

May I point out some obvious facts to you? The Chief Justice holds not one, but two other important Offices because of his exalted position as Chief Justice -- the titular head of the Bar, and the Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. Therefore, I am forced - my words choking past the disbelief strangling them in my throat - to ask, “Which one of these Offices was responsible for the ‘promotion’ and, more importantly, the ‘termination’ of Marcia Ayers-Caesar as a judge?”

 

Upon a clear answer to the above question, can you please then tell us which Office will be using taxpayers’ dollars to defend this monumental cockup in the Courts since Mrs Ayers-Caesar has already begun legal proceedings?

 

You see, my Prime Minister, there has been several notable ‘indiscretions’ the Chief Justice has been associated with while holding in Office - all of which, by the way, have been aired in the public domain, making Trinidad and Tobago a laughing stock at least among Commonwealth Nations that have inherited the British Westminster-style model of governance. Any one of these ‘indiscretions’ might constitute a prima facie case of serious misbehaviour in public office. Sadly, I am to understand that in your capacity as Prime Minister, you have refused to see what lies before your very eyes.

 

Any discretion you may have within your powers under Section 137 of the T&T Constitution, lies solely in your hands. But such discretion is not absolute and is not subject to your sole whims and fancies. You see, in Sharma v. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors (Trinidad and Tobago) [2006] UKPC 57, brought to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) by your former party leader Patrick Manning, 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”

 

Clearly, considering what ‘appears’ to be serious misconduct arising out of the behaviour of the Chief Justice, you have a duty to permit the President to appoint an independent tribunal regarding an investigation. A duty, sir, that you cannot ignore - in the words of the esteemed Judge. You are required by law not to fetter in any discretion or powers you exercise. Your failure to act decisively and diligently could open you to Judicial Review. You are perhaps aware that one of the grounds for judicial review is abuse of the discretion that you must refer the matter to the President. Abuse of that discretion could come by several means, unreasonableness being merely one. Perhaps you’ve heard of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’? It is when a decision is made that is so absurd that no reasonable person could possibly come to that decision. In Trini parlance, dotishness, nuh.

 

There are many other ills facing T&T, the ‘land of milk and honey’ according to your ex-boss. High crime rates, where people - living in self-protective steel cages - cannot even open a gate to drive a car into their own properties without bandits attacking. Young girls going missing; whether murdered or trafficked, we do not know. The police don’t know either for that matter. Even pension-age women aren’t safe, as sick rapes and murders are common to that age group also.

 

The foreign exchange situation is a merry muddle. The ferry fiasco is adrift in the open sea. Traffic into the centralised capital is a nightmare in daytime. The security services are insecure. There is a real perception that the Integrity Commission has lost sight of ‘integrity’. I can go on and on, but the important point is that all is not well. It is a country convulsing on the edge of a precipice, and any day may see the final convulsion that pushes it into the abyss.

 

Even if you act today Sir, the results may not be seen for another 20 years, in realistic terms. That does not mean you give up. You and your party can act now. Leave a commendable legacy and make the future brighter for the future generations. But failure to act leaves another type of legacy, as left behind by the last three of your predecessors. That type of legacy only fuel ‘rum-shop talk’ and it ill befits a Statesman. Let your name and party live on for the right reasons. Show the sturdiness of character you wish to be remembered for.

 

I hope that you take this advice in the spirit it is offered - as patriotic steerage to bring Gypsy’s ‘sinking ship’ back to safe shores.

Constitutional flim-flams

There are 3 constitutional crises facing the Trinidad and Tobago right now. The crises are:

1. The Marcia Ayers-Caesar infamous promotion to the judicial bench.
2. The possible illegality of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC).
3. The possible illegality of the Police Services Commission (PSC).

I will deal with them in order listed.

Ayers-Caesar is the former Chief Magistrate (CM), a post held in the past by another infamous and less-than-honourable son of the soil, Sherman McNicolls. Search for on this website Shermie and you will find loads of shenanigans he was involved in. It must be something in the office that affects the head (and possibly wallets) of the office holders. In any event, we have a situation where the CM was promoted to the High Court and left some 54 outstanding cases behind, all of which may have to be restarted from the beginning. This pissed of those charged in these matters, and a riot occurred in the jail cells downstairs from the court which resulted in some police/prison officers (I forget which) being hurt. Of course, they can now sue the State (using the copy and paste master, Gerald Ramdeen for a sure win) for failing to provide a safe working environment (and that’s only for starters!).

But Ayers-Caesar is expected to go back to the position of the Chief Magistrate, toppling her replacement who can now sue the State because she has/had a ‘legitimate expectation’ to the post she was promoted to. And, if that is not all, the Chief Justice (CJ) claims Ayers-Caesar never resigned as CM. What?! I’ve never known someone having to resign from one position, within the same organisation, to take up a higher post in the same organisation. Did I miss something? Now we have a whole bunch of questions jumping out at the CJ and JLSC, the latter making the appointment by the way.

• If Ayers-Caesar didn’t resign, was she collecting salaries as both CM and a judge?
• Did Ayers-Caesar’s replacement know she wasn’t really promoted and so has no legitimate expectation to either job or salary?
• Why was there no due diligence checks?
• Did she sit in hearing for any cases at the High Court? What happens to those matters?

You see? All kind of questions come to my mind, and I am sure the public (and legal fraternity) has thought up a lot more.

Which brings me to the JLSC. If it is illegal as purported, then this whole episode is a mere speck in the judicial pond. Immediately coming to mind is that Ayers-Caesar appointment would be illegal, as would her replacement’s… and so would any appointments made during the period of illegality!! How so, you ask. Well, an illegal entity can’t appoint a legal entity. Simple. What is illegal can’t make the illegal legal. Now look how this spreads:

Every single appointment would have to be declared void (more lawsuits) and all monies paid by way of salaries and perks would have to be recovered. Like throwing back the cascadoo yuh done eat back in the pond. Hundreds of appointments in the most part, I suspect. And we haven’t even begun to think about the cases those so appointed have been involved in. Can you imagine a few thousands of prisoners realising that the magistrate or judge who heard their case is not legally appointed to do so? What about those who were/are sentenced to prisons or even fines? I see floodgates opening for lawsuits and a mess worse that the sewage dumped in Queen’s Park Savannah.

Same situation for the PSC.

I hope readers now see better how this constitutional gobar (cow dung) is important to be washed, dried and deodorised quickly… I really hope so.

Before I forget… those of you who are wondering why magistrates and judges aren’t commenting ought to know that they can’t. They have to remain impartial in both private as well as public life. Sad, isn’t it? They can neither complain, nor defend themselves.

Is A Long Time

Is a long time I eh write ah blog post here. Is not that shit eh happening, is de opposite – it happening too farse and furious fuh meh to keep up. Not only dat doh, I have exams coming up and de amount ah reading getting heavier. Imagine having to read 11 chapters fuh one piddling assignment that only 1500 words.

Buh back tuh meh thoughts on shit happening farse and furious… it never stop really so it eh have have no parts 1 tuh 8 here. Is one continuous line ah shit like ah waste truck pumping out ah latrine. De amount ah meh thoughts ah had was tuh rubbish, jess tuh keep sane. Some like ah fishbone in meh craw doh.

Ah mean, ah still cyah get over de fact dat de Opposition Leader SC (I realise it really mean someting like Stupid Cow if ah being polite) insisting dat de property tax forms ‘illegal’:

“I am a lawyer, but I have consulted with other lawyers and we have gone through the Valuation Land Act and we have gone through the Property Tax Act and it is very clear that this form, is null and void.”

Ah mean, dotishness come in all shape and form but dis ‘oman is in a league of her own.

Leh we eh forget another UNC blowhard. Search this site for ‘The case of the Walking documents’ and yuh go find Gerald Ramdeen name coming up. Ah man who in de middle ah all kinda corruption probe actually get pick by the UNC to be part ah de team in de Senate.

And leh we eh forget dis fiasco with the promotion/demotion of the former Chief Magistrate (CM). First dey telling we she resigned as CM tuh be a judge, den she resign as a judge tuh go back tuh being CM, allegedly tuh finish outstanding matters. Den we are told she cyar go back as she resigned being CM. Since dat go put de cases she was hearing, de Judiciary, de Chief Justice, de Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) not tuh mention de ‘reputations’ of all de aforementioned in real monkey pants; dey decided dat fuh de purposes of getting her back tuh de magistracy she didn’ really resign as de CM.

Dis is where de logic fall frickin’ dong. So, fuh de 2 weeks she was ah judge, she was collecting 2 salary?! One as CM and one as a judge? Dat is like being Prime Minister and Leader of de Opposition at de same time. Yuh see how frickin’ dotish dat is?

Israel Khan right… like toxins take over …

Buh yuh know what de saddest part ah all dis is? De people eh care. Dat is why all dis going on and dey will continue to misuse de law. Is obvious dem dong dey eh even know what de rule of law is, or how it applies tuh dem.

Gone and forgotten

This bears repeating:

A caller to a radio programme last week suggested there is the danger that we could kill the messenger without hearing his message. He was commenting on the demands made by Opposition Senator Gerald Ramdeen that Chief Justice Ivor Archie, as chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, release all the information on the recent appointments of three judges to the High Court.

The caller suggested further that Senator Ramdeen’s demands be examined fully, that they should be seen in a wider context of our time—when our institutions appear to be falling apart and the credibility of office holders is being questioned publicly.

I found merit in the caller’s suggestion, so I re-examined the recent call by Ancel Roget, president general of the Oilfields Workers Trade Union, to BP to “take your platform and go” and the statements of Watson Duke, president of the Public Service Association, during his call for a “Day of Resistance”.

I fitted both statements into the context of our time, and the results were the same: I concluded that Mr Roget needs to be enlightened about the realities of T&T in the 21st century, and Mr Duke, a crude, showy brawler, is best suited for a Randy Glasgow’s comedy special.

To review Senator Ramdeen’s message we should begin with the February 2014 High Court matter between his client, Jamal Sambury, and the attorney general before Master Patricia Sobion-Awai in which she declared herself “satisfied that substantial portions of the claimant’s witness statement had been lifted from other witness statements in an attempt to mislead the court.”

She noted “the similarities” between Jamal Sambury’s witness statement and that of Jamal Fortune in a previous case (CV 2009-3296), describing them as “so striking that the only reasonable conclusion was one was copied from the other”. She recorded her concerns and called for an investigation to prevent further abuses.

Later in the Appeal Court Senator Ramdeen, instructed by Varun Debideen, appeared before Justices Mendonca, Smith and Rajnauth-Lee. Court documents revealed that attorney Lee Merry, appearing for the AG, reminded the court of Master Sobion-Awai’s conclusion that “the conduct of the litigation was dishonest and an abuse of process.”

Justice Mendonca observed that Master Sobion-Awai wrote “it was a plagiarism from somebody else’s witness statement”, to which Merry responded that in such an instance the main form of deterrence was imprisonment for contempt.

This copying and pasting of evidence became known as “Prisongate”. In May 2014, Chief Justice Archie instructed that the matter be referred to DPP Roger Gaspard, who said in a media release that the matter warranted a criminal investigation. That July, Debideen attempted to introduce an explanation to Master Sobion-Awai but it was denied. In October, ACP Donald Denoon told the Sunday Express that several attorneys were interviewed and he expected the matter “to be concluded soon”. It is still ongoing.

The context widens in November 2010 when one considers the case, known as “The Walking Files”, in which attorney Mark Seepersad reported to the High Court that he shared office space with Ramdeen. On Ramdeen’s departure, he discovered in the office confidential High Court documents and personal belongings of one Asha Harripaul, at the time a judicial support officer.

The judiciary reported the matter to the police. Investigator Sgt Guevarro submitted a report in May 2011, detailing responses from Seepersad. It was concluded then that matter did not warrant further investigation.

After a Sunday Express expose in 2015 Seepersad said he was never interviewed. Acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams then directed ACP Simon Lendor to re-open the matter. Senator Ramdeen claimed that he was questioned by the police, but no mention was made of the “Walking Files”. The investigation continues.

The context widens further, involving prisoner Michael Bullock, a former client of Senator Ramdeen. In February 2009, Master Paray-Durity made an award to Bullock, but in December 2001 that same year, unknown to Bullock, the monies were deposited into Senator Ramdeen’s account. Bullock wrote to the AG and Law Association. Last February, eight years later, the senator paid Bullock $407,000. The Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau continues its work.

Both Ramdeen and Debideen came in for severe criticisms from Sir Anthony Coleman, chairman of the Commission of Enquiry into Clico, who blamed them for the delays in that matter. Last year, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi revealed that Senator Ramdeen’s State briefs under the People’s Partnership government, totalled some $36 million; the Senator responded, giving up all his State briefs.

A still wider context? Should any of these matters go before the new judges will Senator Ramdeen be shouting “victimisation”?

—Keith Subero is a veteran journalist

Small axe cuts big tree

It's no small job to tackle the Marlene McDonald saga that unfolded in the media over the past several weeks. For those who do not know, things began to unfold when certain documents came to light, documents which showed that Marlene used her position as a government minister to influence the Housing Development Corporation into granting a house to her common-law husband Michael Carew… which he promptly rented out. Aside from that, FIXIN’ T&T has offered evidence that Michael and his brother Lennox were employed in the constituency office of said Minister. As FIXIN’ T&T has said:

 

Mr Michael Carew received a monthly payment of TT$13,400 while Mr Lennox Carew has and continues to receive a monthly salary of TT$14,000. Over the period 1 March 2011 and 7 September 2015, the combined salaries of both employees accounted for 60 percent of the constituency’s monthly budgetary allocation of TT$45,700.

 

The particular relevance of these facts is that:

 

1.              Mr Michael Carew meets the legal definition of spouse to the Member of Parliament for Port of Spain South, Marlene McDonald.

 

2.              Mr Michael Carew and Mr Lennox Carew are brothers.

 

3.              Mr Michael Carew and Mr Lennox Carew are both directors of the Calabar Foundation which, over a 15-day period in April to May 2010, applied for and received monies in the sum of TT$575,000 from the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs then headed by Minister Marlene McDonald.  The name Calabar Foundation was applied for on July 14, 2010. It was registered on August 24, 2010.

 

4.              We have been unable to verify whether Mr. Lennox Carew resided in Trinidad the entire period for which he was paid.

 

Readers of this blog with longer memories will recall that Marlene was the minister responsible for government scholarships in 2009. At that time there was evidence of a PNM link in the granting of scholarships. And Marlene was as bad as she was big, adamantly refusing to answer any questions on who, how and how much the scholarships were for. I will return to this in a moment.

 

Continuing with the saga of Marlene and Michael, it arises this morning Friday, 18 March 2016 that Prime Minister Keith Rowley has terminated the services of his Chief Whip and Housing Minister Marlene McDonald. I suspect it was a reluctant decision, from the defence of his minister that the Prime Minister – and Attorney General as well – had previously put forward.

 

But let’s get back to the topic of scholarships. This current government administration has resorted to the courts to enforce the contracts that government scholarship recipients agree to. That is, after finishing their period of study they must return to the service of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Considering that it is the government that pays both educational and living expenses during the period of study, a reasonable person will think that this is fair.

 

The first casualty of this enforcement of contracts was Dr. Ryan Wellington, who has been ordered by the court to pay back roughly $3 million TT dollars. Given that this appears to be the new precedent, I wonder if this government will go after those PNM personnel who were granted “scholarships” under Marlene McDonald’s watch. One would recall that Laurel Lezama, daughter-in-law to the Port of Spain mayor at the time, received $500,000 to study law in England. There is no evidence she completed the law degree, and certainly no evidence that any monies were paid back. Now if there was ever a case to take before the courts it would be this one!

 

I am certainly keeping an eye on the scholarship issue… Now that the Marlene McDonald saga appears to be over. Keep watching this space.

Leaning toward institutional failings

It is hard not to empathise with Shelly Ann Cottle whose baby died during delivery almost two years ago at the Mount Hope Women’s Hospital.

Baby Simeon’s death caused national uproar when it was revealed that his head had been cut from ear to ear. Now with the Medical Board saying that it has cleared Dr Javed Chinnia, the doctor who performed the Caesarean, the grieving mother has been left still searching for an answer to her questions about justice for her son and herself.

The case assumes a certain surreal tone given that Ms Cottle and her husband are yet to find compensatory closure having elected to seek justice through the court after declining the hospital’s offer of $215,000 for the loss of the child and associated distress. Contrast this with the more than $1.5 million that has already been paid out by the State to the commission hired to investigate Baby Simeon’s death. Throughout it all, the doctor at the centre of the tragedy, Dr Chinnia, remained on full pay after being ordered on leave.

Interestingly, news has broken of the Medical Board’s decision as Ms Cottle’s legal challenge begins to make its way through the court. Yesterday, Justice Robin Mohammed granted her request to be identified as her baby’s legal representative which now enables her to take legal action against Dr Chinnia and the North West Regional Health Authority.

Responding to the Medical Board’s decision to clear Dr Chinnia, Ms Cottle is demanding an explanation from the board. Indeed, without prejudice to Dr Chinnia, all of Trinidad and Tobago would like to know the basis of the board’s decision, especially in light of the statement of then attorney general Anand Ramlogan who had told the media that the report veered clearly towards “negligence” on the part of the doctors and the institution that managed Baby Simeon. Presumably, Mr Ramlogan spoke after having had sight of the report.

What makes the board’s decision intriguing, however, is the position articulated over the weekend by the treasurer of the Medical Board, Dr Varma Deyalsingh, that the board’s authority extends only to matters of professional misconduct and not to matters involving possible malpractice and negligence. This raises the question of what exactly has Dr Chinnia been cleared of by the Medical Board. In the interest of public understanding the Medical Board needs to disclose much more on its decision. Indeed, having taken the step to say that it has cleared Dr Chinnia, it is incumbent to disclose its full findings in the public interest.

In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before whom the commission’s report has been pending since 2014 should also update the public on the status of the investigation.

Meanwhile, the continuing tragedy of babies and mothers dying in childbirth poses major challenges for Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh who has found himself behind the curve with one incident after another. His decision to accept a number of recommendations from a review team, including the presence of specialists for critical maternal cases would indeed be a step in the right move if it did not include the caveat of “where staffing levels support this”.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20151202/editorial/medical-board-must-explain

It’s difficult to take in this Express editorial. The glaring inconsistencies of the Medical Board’s position with the end result… a baby’s head sliced open from ear to ear… seem to be at odds. No doubt, it will be passed off as ‘an institutional, or systematic failing’. Once more, it wasn’t the system or institution wielding the scalpel, and I wonder at the type of thinking that passes for logic on the Rock.

Carrying the baton - up the backside

I note with a certain amount of interest that Ken Julien has been reappointed to University of Trinidad and Tobago. I note with even more interest that Julien is now 83 years old… time long past when he should be playing with great-grandchildren…

I never forgot that under his direct ‘leadership’, UTT haemorrhaged TT $1 Billion like a dose of laxative… and then he refused to appear before the Joint Select Committee that tried to investigate.

And not forgetting a certain off-shore bank account, "US$4.2 million bank account in the Guernsey Island managed exclusively by the Trust Fund, HSBC International. It is understood that the Guernsey account generates over US$200,000 a year in interest payments."

So, a man whose ethics and business sense is obviously questionable, who has a foot and a half in the grave at age 83, is the ONLY possible person to carry the baton of UTT forward… obviously up the backside, since I can’t personally see it. Astonishing too a younger, more ethical person can’t be found…

I had the source wrong

Okay, yesterday when I wrote on Dr Jehan Ali refusing to testify in the Crystal Ramsumair medical negligence case, I was speculating that he was refusing to testify because he might be afraid that he would be blackballed by his colleagues.

Turns out I was way, way wrong.

You see, the blackmail is actually coming from Ali, and he has openly confessed to it.

Yesterday, in an interview at his medical offices at San Fernando Specialist Centre, Ali explained to Newsday why he withdrew, saying that it was his medical expertise upon which he advised Ramsoomair’s attorneys in assessing the medical evidence, but had advised against suing Ramballack, “an intern who is not medico- legally covered to operate; does not operate on a patient, but yet she was sued” And to add insult to injury, Ali said, Ramballack, as well as Seenath and Mohammed, were charged privately with manslaughter.

“And I told them, if you are going to file criminal charges against the doctors, I will have nothing to do with this case. It is heartless; imagine a criminal charge of manslaughter hanging over the head of, especially an intern, who had absolutely nothing to do with the operation, but perhaps to draw blood etc. Is this blackmail against the doctors for SWRHA to settle the claim?” Ali asked.

Ali is blackmailing Lorne Ramsumair to cease legal action against the doctors (and boldly taking on the role of judge, jury and executioner), in return for his testimony for the claimant. And yes, I see the irony of the medical fraternity closing ranks, in the opposite direction to what I had imagined.

Frankly, once a doctor is part of the team responsible, he/she is rightly brought into the action as I see it, and as the judge says, “Let the chips fall as they may.” The doctors may be found wholly or partly responsible, or innocent, or may indeed be individually found culpable to varying degrees. But that is not Ali’s job to decide!!

So Ali is really confirming what we all knew all along: that the medical brothers stick together… and fuck the public!