Showing posts with label PNM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PNM. Show all posts

28 Nov 2019

The Prime Minister and the Judiciary

The Trinidad and Tobago Newsday had a big, bold headline “PM promises justice on time”. The article went on to list some of Dr Rowley’s promises – “the public will see some “drastic changes” in the dispensing of justice”. Some of the changes are:

  1. Cabinet has decided to raise the retirement age of judges from 65 to 70.
  2. 60 additional courts occupying 14 floors at the International Waterfront Centre.
  3. a new system of penalties for traffic violations, namely fixed penalties.

If Dr Rowley thinks that these measures would actually make a difference, he must believe that Trinidad and Tobago is some sort of fairy land. Raising the retirement age of judges from 65 to 70 would merely prolong any incompetence of the judicial bench. Take for example the case of Monica Jane Ramnarine (Appellant) v Chandra Bose Ramnarine (Respondent) [2013] UKPC 27 heard in 2013 at the Privy Council (the Board).

  • The first instance judge Tam J took 4 years and 9 months to begin the hearing.
  • He then took 4 years to deliver an oral judgement from the end of the hearing.
  • He then took a further 1 year and 10 months to deliver an 11-page written judgment.
  • Notice of appeal was immediately given after the written judgement but the case took a further 2 years and 3 months for the appeal to be heard.
  • The Court of Appeal took a further 3 years and 2 months to clarify issues for the further appeal to the Privy Council.

A total of 16 years passed before the case was finally decided, during which time legal cost almost surpassed the cost of the estate involved. Only good manners and judicial restraint kept the Board to “a measured response” [the Board’s words].

Does Dr Rowley wish to keep Tam J on the bench, when in the case of Vishnu Ramdath, he took 6 years to deliver an oral judgement?

On the issue of 60 additional courts, one has to ask the obvious question – where is the staff coming from? Can we expect 60 additional judges plus support staff? Will the judiciary continue to be treated like a stray dog, begging for scraps from central government? In 2009, the cost for salaries and other expenses was $349 million. The judiciary was granted $42.5 million! Essentially, every year the judiciary is strangled for the want of funds, making it dependant on the administrative arm of the State.

In the meantime, people on remand awaiting up to 16 years (just a coincidence, nothing to do with Tam J) for preliminary hearings. Certainly not in keeping with the Rule of Law (speedy enforcement of the law), but who cares? In some cases, the length of time on remand is more than the time a guilty person would have spent imprisoned, had he been found guilty of course.

I am not knocking changes to the system – all and sundry knows that it is sorely needed! The problem is that Dr Rowley cannot seem to see the wood for the trees. There is no quick and easy fix – this is a systemic problem rather than a systematic problem. A holistic approach is needed. Proper funding, proper staffing, enforcement by the police, awareness of rights by both police and judicial officers/lawyers, tighter and more efficient case management system, better record-keeping (boxes of court papers held in private lawyers’ offices?), penalties for lawyers who cause undue delay in case management… All of these and more are needed to really tackle the behemoth that is the judiciary.

24 Jul 2019

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..

16 Jul 2019

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.

3 Apr 2018

PNM: a cult

One cannot help but wonder at Rowley's ineffectual leadership. He is leading a ship whose crew is wayward, doing their own thing, and lacks the necessary discipline to work as a unit.

Say what you will about Kamla, and I pounded her endlessly for stupid decisions, she did the right thing - belatedly on some occasions - when she fired 16 Ministers for various ethical transgressions. Some of those transgressions might be considered 'minor' by the PNM standards, which are at an all-time low. One cannot help but compare the two styles of 'leadership'.

I will not be 'popular' for saying this but another difference I have observed is this: Under both UNC administrations, Panday's and Kamla's, there was corruption, which I disagreed with vociferously, but the country did gain many tangible and intangible benefits. Sadly, under the PNM, I am still looking, after nearly 3 years, to see what benefits the country gained. So far, the sea-bridge has collapsed, the crime rate is still going up, the police are still leaderless, the Sports ministry is a personal playground for a sex pest and many more... but money is being spent and certain people are getting richer.

The PNM is run along the lines of a closed cult, and what is inside stays inside.

20 Mar 2018

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.

8 Feb 2011

Grease needed-donations accepted

THE POLICE officer who confronted former prime minister Patrick Manning lost his appeal yesterday against his dismissal from the Police Service.

Clinton Auguste was fired as a police officer following a face-off with Manning and members of his security detail at the entrance to the Prime Minister's residence at La Fantasie Road, St Ann's, in July 2008.

Auguste was fired "for discreditable conduct contrary to regulation 150 (2) (a) of the Police Service regulations 2007", on March 20, 2009.

Auguste was charged with the offence of "acting in a disorderly manner reasonably likely to bring the service into disrepute", after he engaged in a chase and intercept manoeuvre with one of the vehicles in Manning's security detail.

A tribunal headed by former deputy commissioner of police, Gilbert Reyes, suggested that Auguste be dismissed. Auguste appealed the dismissal on four grounds but lost the appeal on all grounds yesterday.

The matter was heard before a three-member Police Service Commission Appeals Tribunal chaired by Addison Khan. Martin George and Kenneth Parker were the other two members on the Appeals Tribunal.

The tribunal yesterday ruled that Auguste's appeal be dismissed and confirmed the decision of the disciplinary tribunal.

At the time this incident occurred, I advised PC Auguste to “Grease yuh bam-bam boy, and grease it well.” You see, I knew this was coming.

If you look at the charge “for discreditable conduct contrary to regulation 150 (2) (a) of the Police Service regulations 2007", you can see that the charge itself is vague and will encompass quite a number of ridiculous circumstances. Keep in mind that at the time PC Auguste was chasing an SUV that was being driven erratically at 4 AM. Further the SUV was illegally darkly tinted and had no identifying marks to indicate that it was a police vehicle.

On the other hand,P**rick brought the office of the Prime Minister into disrepute by his asinine dotish behaviour. No formal disciplinary action was taken against him, but I suppose losing the election and turning into a partial madman might be considered punishment enough.

I for one am wondering now if there is a design to keep PC Auguste out of a job, since P**rick escalated the situation into an attempted assassination. Also keep in mind that at the time Hazel Manning's statement supported PC Auguste. This is a matter of public record in the newspapers since it was printed in direct quotes.

Ah well, I hope Auguste took my advice and greased up well. Lube for a shaft up the nether hole is crucial.

28 Dec 2010

Words fail me today

In the race to become the most dotish person in TnT, we normally had persons like Tattoo, Jerry Narace, P**rick, Hunt, McDonald and others of similar ilk. Enter one previously unknown Farid Hinds. If you are wondering who Hinds  is, wonder no more. Hinds is/was purportedly a ‘minister’ in the Mystery of Tourism, Tobago… ooops, Ministry.

Previously there was a Farid Hinds who was a ‘Fleet Logistics Manager’ at the NWRHA in 2008 and appointed to the Board of the Tourism Development Company (TDC). Same person? I believe it most likely.

The reason Farid is in the running stems from a series of emails exchanged with the Greens -  the English couple who were attacked, chopped and robbed while in Tobago. For brevity, I shall only post Farid’s emails, and point out a few obvious errors.

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:35:09

From: Farid Hinds

To: Martin Green

The government will not purchase the property, You'll would have to consider selling it to someone. The compensation I am still trying to work out, due to the Christmas season everyone is busy. will let u know by weekend via phone. Give my regards to your parents for me.

From: Farid Hinds

To: Martin Green

I hope everything is Ok with yourself and your parents. I will need to get the invoices for the stuff if possible.

From: Farid Hinds

Hi Martin,

i received the email that was very nice of your parents. I is very much appreciated by the minister and the people of Trinidad and Tobago. I am trying 2 work out a deal for you'll on the house and land. Give my regards 2 your aunt and parents.

I really am speechless on this one.

18 Dec 2010

Where oh where, is the integrity?

Integrity Commission

This is an advertisement from the Daily Express publishing names of persons who HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY with the Integrity in Public Life Act (2000). [Chap 22:01]

Unless otherwise stated, a person is required to file a list of income, assets and liabilities within 3 months of becoming a person in public life. Further declarations are due by May 31 of every succeeding year.

Note that the names on this list are of persons who have not filed for 2008, or 2 years ago!!

Note too that the majority* of names are of PNM ‘persons, or persons appointed to act for, on behalf of, or in some way affiliated with the PNM.

The most glaring exceptions I found (after a brief scan and from the names I recognise) are Ms Khadijah Ameen-Rostant (Tunapuna/Piarco Regional Chairperson), Kelvin Ramnath (MP) and Chandresh Sharma (MP).

I did however notice several PNM MPs (shame on them!) including Brigid Annissette-George, Marlene McDonald (these 2 are lawyers would you believe?), Gary Hunt, Paula Gopee-Scoon… Oh, one of the persons failing to so declare is Carol Hernandez, Solicitor General.

I want to remind readers, that despite all the names on this list (there appear to be a couple of hundred at least!), former opposition Leader Basdeo Panday remains the ONLY PERSON charged under this ACT!! The only one in 10 years, mind you. Not one ‘PNM’ person who flaunts the law has been even disciplined by the IC much less the courts.

*Majority does not mean ‘ALL’. It means those of the greater quantity.

2 Dec 2010

Now playing - spit roast

Am rushed for time today. Punks is getting a school award and I want to be there.

One thing to comment on:

Laurence Duprey, who recklessly ran CLICO into the ground, negotiated a deal with the Government (PNM) to bail out the company, is still calling the shots….

Despite an agreement with the Government over the bailout, Duprey sold a subsidiary 3 days after the agreement was signed and for a reported 1/5 of the value of the subsidiary.

CLICO Energy was sold to Proman on February 2, 2009, just three days after the then-PNM government signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Duprey on January 30 to provide an initial $5 billion to rescue CLICO, CLICO Investment Bank and other financially troubled subsidiaries.

Interesting scenario. Duprey orchestrated his own company's troubles, got the Government to bail it out via cash injections, then orchestrates a takeover after the rescue. One wonders what deals went on in the backroom with the PNM crooks, besides Tax-sharer getting out ALL her money before the company collapsed.

In the meantime, the shareholders go after the present Government for even more funds, instead of waiting to collect from the man who shafted them up the nether hole while continuing to live high on the fatted hog.

The poor tax payers: first shafted, now spit roasted.

26 Nov 2010

Label and libel

AN UNSIGNED rambling eight-page statement issued allegedly on behalf of San Fernando East MP Patrick Manning was yesterday emailed to media houses from an email address that names Manning’s wife Hazel.

In the statement, issued in apparent response to an earlier statement in Parliament by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in which she slammed Manning for allegations made last week Friday, Manning reportedly queries why Persad-Bissessar did not lay in Parliament documents she showed to the media yesterday.

Persad-Bissessar held up many documents, including plans and maps, many of which were too large to easily copy and circulate. Documents that were large enough to copy were distributed to the media.

In a statement with potentially libellous assertions, Manning also reportedly said he did not accept Persad-Bissessar’s explanation of her private residence which she said costs $3.5 to $4.02 million, and not $150 million as Manning had said.

Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley yesterday said Manning did not tell him he was issuing this statement in response to one made earlier in the day by Persad-Bissessar in Parliament. Rowley maintained that Manning alone is responsible for any statements he makes about the Prime Minister and his personal conduct in Parliament.

I guess ‘potentially libellous statements’ would ensure that this email will not be released. However, I personally hope that it is ‘leaked’ and goes viral, so that we may all see the contents. I own up to an intense curiosity. (^_^)

From the legal perspective, I foresee that to prove ownership of the email, then the email address may have to be traced back to the person registering it, the IP address of the computer it came from, and that the contents are things that only P**rick has knowledge of. That’s just of the top of my head; I am sure there are a lot more of these legalities that will have to be considered.

Rowley maintained that Manning alone is responsible for any statements he makes about the Prime Minister and his personal conduct in Parliament.

This is a 180° turn by Rowley. When P**rick was making his allegations over the PM’s private residence, he was staunchly supported by his Opposition colleagues. I recall loud desk thumping (unless they were pretending they were thumping him). Rowley even issued a statement in the aftermath in support of P**rick’s statements.

On a separate but equal issue, I had long held the opinion that P**rick was becoming unhinged. Mentally speaking. His behaviour has long been a bit abnormal (my opinion and is not meant to be any medical diagnosis since I am not qualified). My clues to this has been the way and the things he has done. To me, they are/were things a normal reasonable person would shy away from. At least, I would. (^_^)

His latest round of actions seem to point more toward a man suffering from the pangs of defeat that has led to some form of breakdown. His persistence on pursuing the matter of the PM’s private home may be only the latest in the chain; especially in light of the fact that the PM has made public all her documents for public scrutiny. Still, it’s only a matter of time before more people attach the label.

14 Nov 2010

Kamla’s speech

Kamla’s speech in Parliament on Friday 12th November 2010.

It lists some names not in the news reports, people victim to the wajang behaviour of a ‘madman’.

13 Nov 2010

Spying – outside reality?

This spying stuff going on has some really serious implications. Now, I understand the need for information, especially pertaining to criminal or terrorist acts. However, on the flip side to that need are the ‘guarantees’ of the Constitution:

spyvsspy9

        • the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person (S4.a)
        • the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law (S4.b)
        • the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life (S4.c)
        • the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions (S4.d)
        • the right to join political parties and to express political views (S4.e)
        • freedom of thought and expression (S4.i)

Now, the law is open to interpretation, and my interpretation is that those guaranteed rights listed above are all in some way infringed by the covert monitoring (spying) of communications of the individuals.

There are certain places the Constitution allows exceptions to these rights – however, none of the exceptions mentions specifically covert monitoring. In all cases, the Constitution mentions that exceptions to the guaranteed rights must (ought?) to be made by law enacted by Parliament.

Since no such law has been made by the PNM (or P**rick), it stands to reason then that the monitoring is illegal, but more importantly breaches the Constitution to the extent it breaches those guaranteed rights.

Some time ago, I posted a speech by the Lord Chief Justice. That speech warns of the perils of dropping our vigilance in protecting “the constitutional rights of each citizen, as well as the integrity of the constitution by which those rights exist.” Part of that speech bears repeating here:

The places where things have gone wrong include countries which believed that they were mature democracies, where these things did not and could not happen, but they did.

…There was, of course, no physical intimidation, no threat to security of judicial tenure, none of the extremes of tyranny. But it is the first steps which have to be watched. The first incursion by the executive into impropriety. The first compromise by the judiciary with principle. We are all familiar with the employee who steals from his employer. The most difficult time is the first time the hand goes into the till. After that, each successive time is less difficult. The problem with the phrase “eternal vigilance” is that it appears to focus on the long term. But the focus is the immediate, today,  every day. The insidious dangers are no less threatening than the obvious ones, and for the judiciary to acquiesce in the first small, even tiny, steps, may ultimately be terminal.

…In a democratic country all power, however exercised in the community, must be founded on the rule of law. Therefore each and every exercise of political power must be accountable not only to the electorate at the ballot box, when elections take place, but also and at all times to the rule of law. Independent professions protect it.  Independent press and media protect it. [This is an additional issue as well].1961_original_spy_vs_spy

I’ve read most of the articles on the spying issue, and read the comments following. I am appalled at some of the opinions proffered, which to me reek of ignorance and an attempt to bash PP. I don’t find it too unbelievable that the Prime Minister or others were kept in the dark about the SIA and its agenda. Not especially if you read into the information revealed to whom the agency reported.  Since the covert monitoring started long before the current Prime Minister or her colleagues assumed office (years before) then it becomes fairly obvious, at least to me, that the continued ignorance of the spying is not so hard fetched to believe. All it takes is NOT to inform the Prime Minister, whom they were most likely instructed not to inform anyway, given that the reports were directed to one person and one person only. Please note even this person’s colleagues appear unaware they were being spied upon.

So for people to bash the Prime Minister for being unaware of this agency’s actions, merely because she is the Prime Minister and head of the National Security Council is a bit like saying Gibbs should know every actions of his corrupt officers… or something like that.

From what I’ve seen, the Prime Minister took appropriate action as did Gibbs when the situation revealed itself. They continue to take action. I am no fan of any Government but I try to call a spade a spade as I see it. I have been wrong, and may be wrong in the future. But in this case, to say that this is a smokescreen to hide from other issues (such as Ish and Steve, Fazeer Mohammed, etc.) is a bit beyond the realm of reality.

11 Nov 2010

Spies like us

An early-morning police raid, ordered by Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs, on a secret snooping agency within the National Security Ministry has brought to light an extensive list, including Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and private citizens, whose phone calls, text messages and e-mails have been monitored over five years.

Special Branch and Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau officers, who locked down the St Vincent Street, Port of Spain, offices of the Security Intelligence Agency (SIA) at 6 a.m. on October 23, also found $5.9 million in a fireproof safe and a stash of firearms.

In a shock response to the discovery of an elaborately equipped and well-funded "intercept suite" within the SIA, the People's Partnership administration, as disclosed in Government documents made available for viewing yesterday, has:

  • fired Nigel Clement, director of both the Strategic Services Agency and the SIA
  • retained two Canadian technology security experts to sweep for further evidence of the tapping of phone, text and e-mail messages, and to develop a secure communications network for use by the Prime Minister and top officials
  • begun a review and reorganisation of State security apparatus to discover exactly which agencies are doing what and to clarify their lines of reporting
  • drafted for tabling in Parliament tomorrow a bill to outlaw interception of private communication, unless authorised by the order of a High Court judge.

The National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, though weekly briefed by National Security Ministry agencies, had been, until two weeks ago, kept in the dark about the existence and the activities of the SIA "intercept suite".

Documents detailing investigators' findings listed dates and times and brief reasons for interception of the electronic communications people targeted under a variety of titled "operations". The targets include politicians of all parties, independent senators, trade unionists, High Court and Appeal Court judges, county councillors, business people, academics, media people, lawyers in private practice and popular comedians.

What remains unknown to officials is who received the information gathered from such sources and what use was made of it. [The Newsday has it that a high ranking PNM official remains the person that the Unit reports to. “The source alleged that the spy unit was set up by a former high-ranking official of the former PNM government, to which the unit continued to report to even after the change in regime. “He was tapping his own people,” said the source. “]

But they say the SIA, with some 200 staff, has operated out of various safe houses, and ran private companies as fronts for its channelling of millions of dollars of cash to people described as "informants".

The discovery of deep-secret telecommunications snooping by SIA heightened curiosity about which other agencies have been tapping into private talk and electronic chat.

Immediately before the firing of Special Anti-Crime Unit of Trinidad and Tobago (SAUTT) director Brig Peter Joseph, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar had charged SAUTT had tapped her own phones and that of others.

Hard evidence of this has not come from sweeps of SAUTT systems, however. In one document reviewed yesterday, a SAUTT technical manager last September called on all staff to remove from the system all compromising material at this critical time while SAUTT is under scrutiny.

It was in response to the 1990 security failings connected with the coup attempt that the SSA had been enacted by Parliament in 1995. Under the SSA Act, President Max Richards yesterday signed the order revoking the appointment of Clement.

On April 1, the Patrick Manning Cabinet had appointed Clement, a former Coast Guard officer, the director of both the SSA and the lesser-known SIA. Government documents showed a July 2009 Cabinet decision to amalgamate the SSA, the SIA and the Police Special Branch into a single unit.

This decision had apparently not been implemented by last month when the Special Branch, with the ACIB, busted the SIA and proceeded up a wider investigation involving telecommunications intercepts, millions of unaccounted cash dollars, and unregistered firearms.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is expected to address the issue in Parliament tomorrow.

An early morning report from the Express…

 

12 Oct 2010

feeling ignored and seeking attention

Every so often, some political donkey idiot (I don’t want to insult de ass) would make a statement that shows, even if brain could be engaged, that there’s nothing in it. Take this for example:

Chief Secretary in the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) Orville London says Prime Minister Kamla Persad–Bissessar’s visit to Tobago today to distribute laptops is “insensitive and insulting” to the THA. London, who spoke at a press conference last Thursday, said the laptops were a “new resource” and the THA wanted to implement a committee to ensure “smooth transition” when the laptops arrived. “At the last press conference, I indicated my concern that there was no definite date when we in Tobago could know that the laptops will arrive for the various schools,” London said. “I didn’t do this out of spite or anything like that...I did it because I made the point that if we knew when the laptops were coming we would be in a better position to plan.”

Saying he wanted a “process of collaboration,” London added: “We wanted to put ourselves in a position where the children can utilise the laptops or we can help to nurture the environment in which the utilisation of the laptops can be maximised.” He said he requested information from the permanent secretary in the Education Ministry regarding the distribution of laptops to Tobago but got no response. London said no one from the THA at the executive level nor the technical level was informed about today’s distribution. “What is the signal you send to us in Tobago and the THA about the respect of the institution and the respect for the process that must be respected and the relationship that must be followed between the THA and the Central Government and any ministry in the country?” he said.

“What is happening here is that you are telling us that listen, you do not have to speak to us even in matters over which we have control.” Saying he did not want to “come between the children and their laptops,” London, however, said he would not allow the THA to be “abused.” “This is a time of celebration...This a time for the young people to savour the moment and I do not believe that it is reasonable for anybody for whatever motive to also use this as a time to insult the THA,” he said.

Oh please. Such drivel from a man who is expected to lead others...

London, who spoke at a press conference last Thursday, said the laptops were a “new resource” and the THA wanted to implement a committee to ensure “smooth transition” when the laptops arrived.

Why does Tobago need a 'committee' when Trinidad doesn't? Is it because the THA feels left out of the limelight?

...if we knew when the laptops were coming we would be in a better position to plan.

Plan what? For the THA to get into the limelight?

We wanted to put ourselves in a position where the children can utilise the laptops or we can help to nurture the environment in which the utilisation of the laptops can be maximised.

Come again? Without the THA's interference, can't the children 'utilise' the laptops? What environment do you have to 'nurture'? Do you mean every home? To do what exactly?

What is happening here is that you are telling us that listen, you do not have to speak to us even in matters over which we have control.

Control? So it's a question of the THA wanting to control the laptop hand-outs?

I do not believe that it is reasonable for anybody for whatever motive to also use this as a time to insult the THA.

Well London, it is not reasonable for the THA, for whatever motive, to use the time to insult the children or the central government. You're 'farse' and 'outaplace'.

3 Oct 2010

A case of monteil-ado Part 2

FORMER PNM treasurer and Clico Investment Bank (CIB) chairman Louis Andre Monteil in June argued that a possible breach of company law that could have invalidated the $110 million transfer of Home Mortgage Bank (HMB) shares to his company Stone Street Capital was, perhaps, “a technical breach” which did not impact his right to handle the HMB shares.

In a 33 page defence filed in a High Court lawsuit, Monteil also laid bare the “financial health” of his family company Stone Street Capital, revealing that from 2000 to 2006, it benefitted from approximately $83 million worth in credit facilities and held approximately $108 million in fixed deposits at CIB, the bank at which he was chairman.

Battling a multi-million-dollar lawsuit brought against him and his company by the now Central Bank-controlled CIB for alleged breach of fiduciary duties in relation to the Stone Street HMB purchase, Monteil also:

  • – confirms that Stone Street capital did not repay the $78 million transferred to it under a loan from CIB to buy the HMB shares after transfer to a company later bought by another company owned by CL Financial chairman Lawrence Duprey;
  • – argues that his failure to disclose, in writing, to the CIB his interest in the transaction did not invalidate the transfer of the shares to Stone Street from CIB, notwithstanding the provisions of the Companies Act;
  • – reveals that the CIB board transferred $78 million to his company Stone Street on the strength of an oral agreement;
  • – explains that the CIB board accepted the shares that were being bought by the loan as security for the same loan;
  • – notes that Stone Street, in December 2006, bought CL Financial shares worth $444.67 million for $1.4 million;
  • – says that at all relevant times the Central Bank conducted detailed inspections of the CIB books.

At all relevant times, Monteil was chairman at CL Financial, its subsidiary CIB, Stone Street and director at a company later absorbed by former CL Financial executive chairman Duprey.

Both Monteil’s and Duprey’s management of the assets of the CL Financial group have come under renewed scrutiny given the State’s pumping of billions under the terms of a bailout. That bailout has handed over control of CIB to the Central Bank, among other things, and has now triggered a commission of inquiry, announced on Friday by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Lawyers in the CIB court proceedings, which are due to come up for procedural hearing this week at the Hall of Justice, have raised the issue of an apparent failure on the part of Monteil to comply with Section 93 of the Companies Act in relation to the Valentine’s Day 2007 transfer of the HMB shares into a company in which he held personal interest, Stone Street.

In relation to company contracts, Section 93 of the Companies Act reads: “a director or officer of the company shall disclose in writing to the company, or request to have entered in the minutes of meetings of directors, the nature and extent of his interest forthwith after the director or officer becomes aware of the contract or proposed contract.”

Further, if no such written disclosure is made, the contract is set aside, according to the terms of Section 96. Section 96 reads: “When a director or officer of a company fails to disclose, in accordance with section 93 or 94, his interest in a material contract made by the company, the court may, upon the application of the company or a shareholder of the company, set aside the contract on such terms as the court thinks fit.”

In his defence, Monteil reveals that he gave the CIB board oral notification of his interest in the Stone Street transaction before the issue was formally approved at a meeting in June 2007.

“The defendants further say that before the approval of the loan was addressed at said meeting of June 22, 2007, Monteil, for the avoidance of doubt, expressly reminded the board of CIB of his interest in Stone Street and the loan, namely that Stone Street was his company and thereafter excused himself, left the boardroom and took no part in the deliberations relative to the loan,” Monteil deposes in a statement filed on June 28, 2010.

“The defendants still further say that upon returning to the boardroom Monteil was informed that approval of the loan had been granted to Stone Street.”

But according to Monteil, “where a director of CIB proposes to enter into a contract with CIB which benefits himself… and the directors of CIB other than himself know of the interest of the director at the time that it takes a decision to enter into such contract but the said director failed to comply with the provisions of Section 93 of the Companies Act, such failure merely constitutes a technical breach of Section 93.”

Further, according to Monteil, who for the first time discusses this apparent technical breach, “no relief will be granted (including the setting aside of such contract) by the court whether pursuant to Section 96 of the Companies Act or otherwise.”

The apparent failure to comply with company law came after a series of events now disclosed in Monteil’s court submissions. He reveals that Stone Street later had no cause to repay the $78 million it got from CIB under the loan to purchase the HMB shares because that loan was transferred to First Capital Limited (FCL)/St Lucia.

“The defendants admit so much of paragraph 63 of the statement of case as alleges and/or implies that Stone Street did not repay the $78 million advanced to it by CIB,” Monteil says. “FCL/St Lucia assumed, inter alia, all Stone Street’s previous liability to repay the said sum under the loan agreement dated December 20, 2007.”

“On or about July 25, 2008, the entire issues share capital of FCL/St Lucia was purchased by Dalco, a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago and controlled by Lawrence Duprey as director and shareholder.”

Yet, the CIB board had not, on April 22, 2008, approved the loan novation to FCL/St Lucia, but rather a different company: FCL/St Kitts.

“The loan was never transferred to FCL/St Kitts but was in fact transferred to an entirely different company namely, FCL/St Lucia.” FCL/St Lucia “only came into existence and/or was incorporated in St Lucia on July 4, 2008, approximately two and a half months after the said meeting of April 22, 2008.”

Monteil traces the origins of the deal to an oral conversation “in or around February 2007.” He “orally requested of CIB’s then President and CEO (Richard) Trotman, that CIB provide Stone Street with a medium term loan facility of $78 million for the purpose of assisting Stone Street with buying 7 million HMB shares from Clico (a member of the CL Financial Group).”

“In support of such request, Monteil provided Trotman with a written agreement (apparently made without financing documents yet in place) made between Stone Street and Clico whereby Stone Street agreed to purchase the 7 million HMB shares at or for a price of $110 million.”

On Valentine’s Day 2007, “the board of directors of CIB (save and except for Monteil) approved the grant of the loan and the disbursement thereof via round robin by phone after considering a CIB board investment committee report/note,” Monteil deposes. On the board at the time was Faris Al Rawi, later a PNM senator and son of former PNM minister Diane Seukeran, and Anthony Rahael, said to be the brother of former PNM minister John Rahael. Trotman then “orally notified Stone Street (through Monteil)” of the approval and the terms and conditions thereof.

The rest of the financing was pulled from a $30 million loan from the First Citizens Bank, and a $2 million loan from another Monteil vehicle company called Spreadeagle Co Ltd But what security did Stone Street offer?

“Stone Street deposited with CIB its share certificates relative to the HMB shares as well as an undated share transfer form signed by Stone Street as transferor in respect of such shares with the name of the transferee left blank on the understanding that CIB was to complete such forms in its favour in the event that Stone Street became unable to service the loan,” Monteil says. Putting assets being acquired for a loan up a security for the same loan is not an uncommon procedure, financiers noted this week.

Arguing that the value of the shares were more than the loan, Monteil further notes that, additionally, “the cash value of Stone Street’s deposits with CIB at any given time were “not less than $38.8 million and $33.3 million”.

At all relevant times, there was oversight from the Central Bank, Monteil also notes.

On May 2007, the Central Bank “through their servants and/or agents inspected the books, records and other documents of CIB relative to the loan”. The same occurred in April 2009 after the loan had been transferred to FCL/St. Lucia. And reports were issued by the Central Bank suggesting “detailed inspections” in the years 2007 and 2008.

spacerI decided to repost this entire article before it becomes ‘lost’ like so many others. Part 1 is here.

24 Sept 2010

Time to take the blinkers off

Whilst racking my brain this morning for a topic to blog about, I was rescued by the dunceys. As always.

I was of a mind to blog about the blindness or tunnel vision of party supporters as evidenced over the past 2 or 3 days on the forums of both Express and Guardian. If you look at the comments, you can see where persons support, donkey-styled blinker fashion, either the PP or the PNM. Hardly are we seeing where someone recognises that just because the PNM was corrupt and wasted money through corruption and cronyism/nepotism that this is no reason for the PP to do the same.

Instead, what I am seeing are excuses for allowing the PP to get away with similar tactics, as long as the corruption/cronyism/nepotism is less. Again I say, 2 wrongs cannot make a right.

Like I pointed out once:

If one person breaks the law, does this mean that he or she should not be prosecuted because 199 others did it and have not been? No, it means that steps should be taken to pursue the other 199, even though one may argue that pursuing the one is victimising him.

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

…but when one is in public office, one must be careful as to what gifts one can or cannot receive.

Read also that last line as “… what gifts one can or cannot present”  and you will have an idea as to the current situation of Anand Ramlogan handing out largesse to friends and/or family. One person even went so far to mention:

I would think that in the absence of any specific law, or a fixed schedule of fees, retaining briefs from "friends" and "family" may not be illegal, unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated, or there are grossly inflated fees in excess of stipulated guidelines.

To this I respond as follows:

The law is not infallible. There are case law and statute and more specifically the latter attempts to correct 'loopholes' in the law by amendments to legislation. Just because something is legally correct does not mean it is right. Case in point: do you remember P**rick changing the law to facilitate the $110M transfer of shares to Andre Monteil? Legally - correct; morally and ethically - wrong. He even promised the money will be repaid... was it ever?

Just because the PNM did it (any particular action), is not reason for Ramlogan or the PP to do it. Just because they spend less on cronyism and nepotism than the PNM is no reason to sanction it.

Somehow, when I read these views I remember my neighbour’s donkey and the blinkers he wore when taken out. The donkey therefore could only see one direction when he turned his head. By the way, the comments on that last link are also applicable to my point on why 2 wrongs don’t make a right… and on tunnel vision too… be sure and read the relevance in the comments rather than the situation please, before making claims that the 2 subject matters are different.

I turn now to the preposterous idea that Kamla is only firing Afro-Trinis from high positions. First was the guy from ODPM, then Philbert, and now the Joseph from SAUTT. Have we forgotten the Goan is gone? By the way, does anyone know if this Joseph is related to Martin Joseph?

Reason enough for the firing below:

However, commenting on the wire-tapping claims, a SAUTT source confirmed calls were monitored but said this was done to protect Persad-Bissessar.

Her conversations were monitored for threats and key words such as “kill”, “kidnap”, “murder”, “assault”, would have triggered a response from SAUTT, said the source.

The source admitted Persad-Bissessar was never told her phones were monitored.

The alternative to the PP firing the top persons who are only of one race is that… perhaps the PNM hired persons of only one race to top positions. Seems to me that this is where the source of the controversy comes from, not the actual firing itself. Still, one waits for the fanatics to argue.

22 Sept 2010

Animal Farm again?

fullfront1267frontShades of Animal Farm!

I am looking at this article in the Newsday, and for some reason the story of Animal Farm came to mind…

In his last administration, Manning instructed that his household staff should include foreigners which were 20 Filipinos, an Indian, a St Lucian, a Swede and a Portuguese national.

Seven Trinidadians were the only locals assigned to the former residence under Manning. Even security officers assigned to guard Manning were mainly from African countries, such as Nigeria, and it was reported the former prime minister did not trust the local police.

One wonders what entered the mind of P**rick when he made these changes. I had likened his administration before to the Animal Farm story. Seems to me that some things are more equal than others, if you know what I mean.

“Old Major, the old boar on the Manor Farm, calls the animals on the farm for a meeting, where he compares the humans to parasites and teaches the animals a revolutionary song, "Beasts of England".

When Major dies three days later, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and turn his dream into a philosophy. The animals revolt and drive the drunken and irresponsible Mr. Jones from the farm, renaming it "Animal Farm."

The Seven Commandments of Animalism are written on the wall of a barn. The most important is the seventh, "All animals are equal." All the animals work, but the workhorse, Boxer, does more than others and adopts the maxim — "I will work harder."

Snowball attempts to teach the animals reading and writing; food is plentiful; and the farm runs smoothly. The pigs elevate themselves to positions of leadership and set aside special food items ostensibly for their personal health. Napoleon takes the pups from the farm dogs and trains them privately. When Mr. Jones tries retaking the farm, the animals defeat him at what they call the "Battle of the Cowshed." Napoleon and Snowball struggle for leadership. When Snowball announces his idea for a windmill, Napoleon opposes it. Snowball makes a speech in favour of the windmill, whereupon Napoleon has his dogs chase Snowball away. In Snowball's absence, Napoleon declares himself leader and makes changes. Meetings will no longer be held and instead a committee of pigs will run the farm.

Using a young pig named Squealer as a mouthpiece, Napoleon announces that Snowball stole the idea for the windmill from him. The animals work harder with the promise of easier lives with the windmill. After a violent storm, the animals find the windmill annihilated. Napoleon and Squealer convince the animals that Snowball destroyed the windmill, although the scorn of the neighbouring farmers suggests the windmill's walls were too thin. Once Snowball becomes a scapegoat, Napoleon begins purging the farm, killing animals he accuses of consorting with Snowball. Meanwhile, Boxer takes up a second maxim: "Napoleon is always right."

Napoleon abuses his powers, making life harder for the animals; the pigs impose more control while reserving privileges for themselves. The pigs rewrite history, villainizing Snowball and glorifying Napoleon. Squealer justifies every statement Napoleon makes, even the pigs' alteration of the Seven Commandments of Animalism. "No animal shall drink alcohol" is changed to "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess" when the pigs discover the farmer's whisky. "Beasts of England" is banned as inappropriate, as according to Napoleon the dream of Animal Farm has been realized. It is replaced by an anthem glorifying Napoleon, who appears to be adopting the lifestyle of a man. The animals, though cold, starving, and overworked, remain convinced through psychological conditioning that they are better off than they were when ruled by Mr. Jones. Squealer abuses the animals' poor memories and invents numbers to show their improvement.

Mr. Frederick, one of the neighbouring farmers, swindles Napoleon by buying old wood with forged money, and then attacks the farm, using blasting powder to blow up the restored windmill. Though the animals win the battle, they do so at great cost, as many, including Boxer, are wounded. Boxer continues working harder and harder, until he collapses while working on the windmill. Napoleon sends for a van to take Boxer to the veterinarian, explaining that better care can be given there. Benjamin the donkey, who "could read as well as any pig",[4] notices that the van belongs to "Alfred Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler", and attempts to mount a rescue; but the animals' attempts are futile. Squealer reports that the van was purchased by the hospital and the writing from the previous owner had not been repainted. He recounts a tale of Boxer's death in the hands of the best medical care. Shortly after Boxer's death, it is revealed that the pigs have purchased more whisky.

Years pass, and the pigs learn to walk upright, carry whips, and wear clothes. The Seven Commandments are reduced to a single phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Napoleon holds a dinner party for the pigs and the humans of the area, who congratulate Napoleon on having the hardest-working animals in the country on the least feed. Napoleon announces an alliance with the humans, against the labouring classes of both "worlds". He abolishes practices and traditions related to the Revolution, and reverts the name of the farm to "Manor Farm".

The animals, overhearing the conversation, notice that the faces of the pigs have begun changing. During a poker match, an argument breaks out between Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington when they both play the Ace of Spades, and the animals realize that the faces of the pigs look like the faces of humans and no one can tell the difference between them.”

“Later, Napoleon and his pigs are corrupted by the absolute power they hold over the farm.”

(^_^)… Note the line in italics and see if Squealer reminds you of any particular PNMite… it’s only a little clue.

De Souza, a Portuguese who grew up in Goa, India, was dismissed three weeks ago after a breach in the confidentiality policy of the official household was reported to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Under the PNM administration of Patrick Manning, de Souza was seconded from the Hyatt Regency in Port-of-Spain to the Prime Minister’s Residence in 2007 where, as executive house manager, he was the head of the household. He took up this position on November 7, 2007, two days after the general election which the PNM won. His salary as executive house manager was $30,870 per month.

One wonders what the alleged breach is, for macco purposes if nothing else. I have no reason to doubt that there was no breach as claimed. (^_^)

Still, this story reminded me so much of Animal Farm…

9 Sept 2010

Promises or delivery?

"Outside of those three areas, those of us who are familiar with the annual budget exercises would have recognise all the clichés, the CNGs, the small businesses, the agriculture comments," he said, adding there was absolutely nothing directional about the budget or a change of direction.

This is from Keith Rowley, Opposition Leader.

After I read this statement, I recognised the clichés too. Seems these are some of the promises also made by the PNM over the years and which have never had delivery. I mean, for years people have been begging for help in various sectors, and for years the PNM ignored them and kept going with other, more grandiose plans.

Maybe it’s time we give a new government a chance to deliver – even if it is the same promises.

11 Jul 2010

How deep does it go?

It boggles the mind the level of corruption that the past administration was involved in, as revealed by the present administration.

  1. http://bit.ly/9AiaxG
  2. http://bit.ly/9d4ifo
  3. http://bit.ly/bJQQ6l
  4. http://bit.ly/aFtRGm

And those are only from today’s newspapers. Who knows what will surface later on?