While a full statement is awaited on Cabinet's investigation into the fire truck "fiasco;" more precisely as the cabal in the Cabinet (those who led the chorus to pay the $6.8 million for retrieval of the firetruck from the precipice) searches for plausibility on this outrageous wrecking bill, it remains incredulous that the Cabinet, the highest executive decision-making body in the land, could have succumbed in the manner it is reported to have done to this shake-down.
There would be those who would argue that the Cabinet did not succumb but for whatever the reason bought into the rationale behind the payment. But maybe those who readily agreed to this injudicious expenditure knew more than the others who were forced on board the ship when it set sail.
Even more astonishing is the attempt by individual cabinet members to persuade the national population that payment of the bill was exclusively the responsibility of former national security minister Jack Warner; even more unbelievably that the responsibility lies with the chief fire officer.
The contours of the spin so far discerned suggest that the same tactic used in the firing of Herbert Volney, ie, he misled Cabinet, will be again applied. Only difference this time around, Warner has already left/been fired for another reason; there will, therefore, be no head on a silver platter for this obscene pillage of the Treasury.
Collective cabinet responsibility as fixed in the tradition of Westminster is based upon the need for ministers belonging to the Cabinet to fully discuss policies, programmes and other matters brought before the Executive before agreement is arrived at.Once that discussion is engaged and a conclusion reached by the whole, those who had previously disagreed must fall in line or leave the Cabinet if the matter continues to stick in the craw.
It defies 21st-century logic that a group of ministers, chaired by a Prime Minister, a brilliant senior counsel, and one containing another of the same ilk/silk and several persons of PhD and senior academic status and experience, could sit and agree to spend $6.8 million to retrieve a water tender without asking and getting logical responses to basic fundamental questions.
How much would it cost to replace this tender? What was the original value of the vehicle? Were there attempts to seek other bids to get the job done?An anonymously-quoted Cabinet minister is supposed to have said that they were led to believe that the water truck cost $50 million; so $6.8 million seemed reasonable. What director of a company would swallow that story without checking? Remember, this is a water truck, not one of those fancy appliances with hoses, ladders and the other accoutrements needed for fire fighting.
Any board of directors, any cabinet must perform a role beyond being a rubber stamp for every project laid on the table.If the Cabinet is not the place for a rigorous discussion on policies, the expenditure of billions of dollars before final decisions are taken, then our system of governance is obsolete, open to gross inefficiency, corruption and much more.
Indeed, this Cabinet recently fired the board of Caribbean Airlines for inefficient use of the resources of the airline in circumstances far less aggravated than this one. Is it that the Cabinet has a special privilege to throw away (or worse) the resources of the country?
Further indictment on the Cabinet and the process of blind or forced adherence to whatever comes before it is the practice that has been adopted by succeeding cabinets, that being that policies and programmes have a second pass before a final decision is taken.
The logic of the process of having Cabinet members reflect on the policy, programme or decision for a second time suggests that ministers have time to research, rethink and/or reflect on the matter before an eventual decision is made.
That the payment, whether $10m or $6.8m, was refused a second time indicates that there were those who were not persuaded that the job and firetruck were worth the asking fee. What reasons did they offer for refusing the second time? Were there ministers who had sought-out and received answers to the logical questions posed above?Minister Anil Roberts stated in Parliament that notwithstanding the Cabinet's refusal, the job was done and so left Cabinet with no choice but to pick up the bill.
Question: What did the strong and sagacious Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar do about a minister who so violated procedure? She surely fired a few other ministers for far less.The fact is that in all probability if there was not this rupture in the relations between Warner and the Prime Minister and a few members of the cabal, information on the firetruck matter would never have surfaced.
It seems clear that having found itself in a serious bind in relation to Warner's intended candidacy for the ruling United National Congress in Chaguanas West, the leak in the information was sprung to remove the Warner threat. However, mouth open and tory jump out.