The Conflict Between Sections 76 and 80 of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution and Its Broader Implications

The unfolding political situation in Trinidad and Tobago, where an outgoing Prime Minister (Dr Keith Rowley) is effectively handpicking his successor (Stuart Young) while retaining leadership of the governing party (PNM), raises serious constitutional, political, and democratic concerns. This issue is compounded by the fact that the President, Christine Kangaloo, was a recent member of the same political party and appointed by Dr Rowley himself, raising further questions about institutional neutrality.

At the heart of this issue is the constitutional tension between Sections 76 and 80, and the broader impact on governance, democracy, economic accountability, and public trust.

---

1. The Constitutional Conflict: Sections 76 and 80

Section 76: Appointment of the Prime Minister

• Section 76(1) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago states that the President must appoint as Prime Minister a Member of the House of Representatives who commands the support of the majority of members.
• Traditionally, this means the leader of the ruling party, but it does not specify that the Prime Minister can appoint their own successor while remaining leader of the party.
• The problem arises because Stuart Young has not faced the electorate as leader of the government and is instead being chosen internally.
• Given that Dr Rowley remains leader of the PNM, the real power structure remains unchanged.

Section 80: Presidential Discretion in Appointment

• Section 80(1) states that the President shall act “in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.”
• However, Section 80(2) allows the President discretion in certain matters, including the appointment of a Prime Minister when there is ambiguity about who commands a majority in Parliament.
• Given that the President was a PNM member and was appointed by Dr Rowley, her ability to exercise independent discretion is questionable.
• This raises a fundamental issue of constitutional impartiality—was President Kangaloo acting independently, or was she following directives from her political associates?

Key Constitutional Issue:

• If Dr Rowley remains PNM leader, and his successor is chosen by him and rubber-stamped by a President aligned with his party, does this violate the spirit of democracy?
• It effectively bypasses the electorate and avoids accountability, turning the Prime Minister’s office into a de facto appointment rather than an elected position.

---

2. Political Implications: Erosion of Democracy and Institutional Integrity

Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy

• The entire Westminster system is built on the idea that the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and, ultimately, to the people.
• By handpicking a successor without an election, Dr Rowley is setting a precedent where the Prime Ministership becomes an internal party decision rather than a democratic process.
• A Prime Minister who has not faced the electorate lacks democratic legitimacy, particularly in a country where corruption and economic mismanagement are major concerns.

Collapse of Institutional Checks and Balances

• The President is supposed to act independently, but given her political background in the PNM, there is a perception of bias that weakens public trust in the office.
• The Cabinet’s rubber-stamping of Young’s appointment suggests that the Executive is operating without genuine scrutiny.
• The Opposition lacks the strength to counter this, leading to a situation where one party controls the Presidency, Parliament, and Prime Ministership without direct electoral validation.

---

3. Social Consequences: Public Distrust and Disillusionment

Declining Trust in Government

• Trinidad and Tobago has a history of political tribalism, but this level of perceived undemocratic manoeuvring can significantly erode trust in institutions.
• People may start to view the political system as rigged—where elections don’t really matter because power is circulated within party elites rather than decided by the voters.
• A government that lacks legitimacy fuels social unrest, disengagement from voting, and increased scepticism towards political leadership.

Rise of Political Apathy or Radicalisation

• If citizens believe their votes don’t count, this could lead to a decline in voter participation—a dangerous outcome for any democracy.
• Alternatively, it could fuel more radical political movements that reject the current system altogether, leading to greater polarisation and potential social instability.

---

4. Financial and Economic Ramifications: $3 Billion Unaccounted for and Continued Mismanagement

PNM’s Economic Track Record: Financial Mismanagement and Corruption

• The PNM has been in power for nearly a decade, presiding over widespread financial mismanagement.
• The Auditor General’s report revealed that $3 billion is unaccounted for, an issue that reached the Privy Council, yet there has been no accountability or resolution.
• The failure to address corruption and economic mismanagement weakens investor confidence and limits economic growth.

Appointment of a New PM Without a Mandate Exacerbates Economic Decline

• A Prime Minister who has not faced the electorate is unlikely to implement major reforms, as they lack a clear democratic mandate.
• Investors and international partners may lose confidence in the government, further weakening the country’s economy.
• Without electoral legitimacy, Young’s government would be more focused on maintaining internal party power than addressing real economic concerns such as inflation, employment, and energy-sector instability.

Burden on the Taxpayer

• If the UNC challenges this appointment in court, as they should, it will result in high legal costs borne by the taxpayer.
• More importantly, if the challenge is successful, it could trigger a constitutional crisis, requiring new elections or legislative reforms—both of which will cost the country millions more in public funds.

---

5. The Need for Clearer Accountability: Avoiding "Prime Ministership by Theft"

Reforming the Appointment Process

• The current conflict between Sections 76 and 80 highlights the need for explicit constitutional reform to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
• A Prime Minister should not be able to appoint their own successor while retaining party leadership—this is fundamentally undemocratic.
• The President should be required to demonstrate clear evidence of parliamentary support before confirming a new Prime Minister.

Immediate Legal Action Is Necessary

• The UNC and civil society must challenge this appointment in court, forcing greater transparency in the process.
• Even if the legal challenge does not succeed in reversing the appointment, it sets a precedent that the electorate will not tolerate unchecked power.

---

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent for Trinidad and Tobago

The appointment of Stuart Young as Prime Minister without an electoral mandate, facilitated by a President with close ties to the ruling party, represents a clear erosion of democratic principles. The constitutional conflict between Sections 76 and 80 underscores the need for greater accountability and transparency in executive appointments.

The political, social, and financial consequences of this manoeuvre are profound:

• It undermines democracy by allowing the Prime Ministership to be controlled by party elites rather than the electorate.
• It damages public trust in institutions, increasing political apathy and instability.
• It perpetuates financial mismanagement, with an unaccountable administration continuing questionable economic practices.

If left unchallenged, this situation sets a dangerous precedent where future Prime Ministers can entrench themselves in power without electoral legitimacy—an effective slide towards dictatorship. Trinidad and Tobago must act now to defend its democratic integrity before it is too late.

Pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime

I was bemused at Fitzgerald Hind’s publicly expressed opinion that pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime. Granted, in the same vein that he expressed this opinion, he also stated that “I am no sociologist, I am not criminologist [sic] but I am almost certain that they are.” [Daily Express 2/4/23, https://tinyurl.com/5c2aha3u].

I thought such outdated thinking was debunked many moons ago, but here comes our National Security Minister, arguing from authority and emotional thinking, simultaneously making two well-known critical thinking errors in one statement.

To quote from the article, “Responding to Hosein’s comments, Hinds expressed doubt about crime being linked to poverty and unemployment.

“The jury for me is out on that.”

He seems to have been asleep before, during and after the jury delivered on the social determinants of crime.

Might I suggest to the goodly minister that he investigate and make ample use of ChatGPT, a well-known open-source Artificial Intelligence (AI) which provides answers more rooted in reality. ChatGPT, when asked the question, “what are the main social determinants of crime?”, gave the answer below:

“Social determinants of crime are complex and interconnected factors that influence the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour. These factors are rooted in social, economic, and environmental conditions. Some of the main social determinants of crime include:

1.        Poverty: Poverty can lead to feelings of desperation, frustration, and hopelessness, which can contribute to criminal activity as people search for ways to meet their basic needs or escape their circumstances.

2.        Education: Lower levels of education are associated with a higher likelihood of criminal involvement. Lack of education can limit job opportunities and social mobility, leading to increased vulnerability to criminal activities.

3.        Family structure: Dysfunctional or unstable family environments can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour and delinquency, especially when there is a lack of proper supervision, positive role models, or emotional support.

4.        Peer influence: The influence of peers, particularly those involved in criminal activities, can increase the likelihood of an individual participating in crime. Peer pressure and the desire to fit in or gain social status can contribute to criminal behaviour.

5.        Unemployment: High unemployment rates can lead to financial insecurity, social dislocation, and frustration, all of which can contribute to criminal behaviour.

6.        Social disorganization: Communities with high levels of social disorganization, such as those characterized by residential instability, weak social networks, and limited community resources, often experience higher crime rates.

7.        Substance abuse: Alcohol and drug abuse can impair judgment, exacerbate existing mental health issues, and contribute to criminal behaviour, both directly (e.g., drug-related offenses) and indirectly (e.g., property crimes to support a drug habit).

8.        Inequality and social exclusion: Significant income disparities and social exclusion can lead to feelings of resentment, marginalization, and anger, which may contribute to criminal behaviour.

9.        Cultural factors: Cultural values and norms that condone or even encourage criminal behaviour can contribute to crime. For example, some subcultures may view certain criminal acts as acceptable or even prestigious.

10.      Mental health: Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or personality disorders, can increase the risk of criminal behaviour, particularly when left untreated or combined with other risk factors.

It is important to note that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and multiple determinants may interact to influence an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour. Addressing these social determinants is critical to reducing crime rates and promoting public safety.”

ChatGPT even provided references for the link between crime and poverty:

“How strongly is poverty associated with crime levels and give me some good references, please.”

“The association between poverty and crime levels is well-established, though the strength of the relationship can vary depending on various factors, including location, type of crime, and the specific measures used to assess poverty. Research indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly property and violent crimes.

Here are some references that can provide more insight into the relationship between poverty and crime:

1.        Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646711

2.        Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and Inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

3.        Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and Violent Crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 1-39. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/338347

4.        Sharkey, P. (2009). Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap. Economic Mobility Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts. URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/neighborhoods-and-the-blackwhite-mobility-gap

5.        Chiricos, T. G. (1987). Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence. Social Problems, 34(2), 187-212. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/800558”

Mr Hinds seems out of his depth in thinking at a higher level beyond the Nicki Minaj approach to serious issues. I can only hold my head in despair at what further depths the country’s crime situation will plummet over the next few years.

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