In T&T, there are deeply dis­turb­ing is­sues, wor­ri­some rev­e­la­tions, and un­tidy re­al­i­ties about Gov­ern­ment, po­lit­i­cal par­ties, and pol­i­tics. Gains are made, but a tox­ic en­vi­ron­ment over­whelms them.

How kind­ly can one de­scribe the con­tend­ing points of view be­tween the Prime Min­is­ter and the for­mer head of the SSA on the mis­sion of the SSA be­fore the scan­dal broke and its di­rec­tor was sus­pend­ed and then fired?

Even if one gives the Prime Min­is­ter the ben­e­fit of the doubt, what ex­act­ly is the truth?

What can be more dis­turb­ing in this lit­tle gang-as­sault­ed and crime-rid­den coun­try than a big hole in the na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty ap­pa­ra­tus and a threat to the State, with po­ten­tial dan­ger to peace and sta­bil­i­ty in our coun­try? The fact that the Gov­ern­ment is fix­ing it is com­mend­able.

But does T&T re­main vul­ner­a­ble? In ad­di­tion, the What­sApp ex­changes be­tween Prime Min­is­ter Row­ley and for­mer com­mis­sion­er of po­lice Gary Grif­fith are al­so dis­turb­ing, both be­cause of the Prime Min­is­ter’s align­ment of in­ter­est and the tone of com­plic­i­ty by two hold­ers of con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly de­fined of­fices and roles who are both now in the po­lit­i­cal are­na as ad­ver­saries.

Not that it is wrong for the Prime Min­is­ter to have a friend or to have cor­dial re­la­tions with a CoP, nor that he would in­quire in­to some­thing to ex­pe­dite bu­reau­crat­ic process­es for a friend, but rather the sug­ges­tion of mu­tu­al ben­e­fits shared all around and of par­ti­san friend­ships.

What prompt­ed the rev­e­la­tion of What­sApp mes­sages was an ac­cu­sa­tion by the Gov­ern­ment that Grif­fith was dish­ing out guns to favourites. Is there not a gen­er­al is­sue here of cred­i­bil­i­ty be­ing at stake?

The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion and some of her col­leagues have sought to con­nect the T&T Gov­ern­ment’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with In­di­an busi­ness­man Naveen Jin­dal, charged in an In­di­an court with bribery of a pub­lic of­fi­cial, with Jin­dal hav­ing deep, al­leged­ly pref­er­en­tial ties with Venezue­lan gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials in busi­ness part­ner­ships there. And this is now be­ing close­ly, sus­pi­cious­ly watched, in some quar­ters, as the Gov­ern­ment seeks to make de­ci­sions on a like­ly in­vestor for the idle Pointe-a-Pierre re­fin­ery.

As gangs as­sert their pow­er, un­fet­tered by the po­lice, the laws, or po­lit­i­cal pow­er, the Op­po­si­tion seems to be ham­strung by the bruis­ing bat­tle of the in­ter­nal elec­tions. 

It is un­like­ly that MP Rai Rag­bir ig­nored his chief whip with­out the knowl­edge and con­sent of his Pa­tri­ot col­leagues. The sig­nal sent by his ac­tion may well have chas­tened the strat­e­gy and ap­proach of the Op­po­si­tion leader there­after, as the par­lia­men­tary ses­sion end­ed.

Who can re­ly on whom, for what, on the op­po­si­tion bench now? How can they co­here? How can cred­i­ble al­liances out­side be built in the wake of un­re­solved in­ter­nal par­ty ten­sions?

And there may yet be po­lice mat­ters, DPP mat­ters, and court mat­ters that may arise in this charged, po­lit­i­cal­ly ag­gres­sive pe­ri­od be­tween now and the 2025 elec­tion. There might be a cred­i­bil­i­ty prob­lem for some of the loy­al­ists to Kam­la Per­sad-Bises­sar as well as a prob­lem of clar­i­ty and co­her­ence in pol­i­cy for so­lu­tions to our deep-seat­ed, more in­tractable prob­lems.

The prece­dent sug­gests that the Pa­tri­ots are all go­ing to be re­placed as 2025 elec­tion can­di­dates. Will all cur­rent loy­al­ist can­di­dates strength­en UNC’s cred­i­bil­i­ty as a so­lu­tions-ca­pa­ble gov­ern­ment?

Can a uni­fi­ca­tion strat­e­gy be built on this ap­proach? The Pub­lic Ac­counts Com­mit­tee, chaired by the Op­po­si­tion, has sur­ren­dered its par­lia­men­tary and po­lit­i­cal role to the lawyers and the courts on a mat­ter in­volv­ing a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ed of­fice that is meant to en­sure in­tegri­ty through ef­fec­tive scruti­ny of the pub­lic ac­counts!

The af­fi­davit sworn by the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance to jus­ti­fy his stance on wages for pub­lic ser­vants begs for a case to be made against the min­is­ter for mis­lead­ing the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives in his var­i­ous con­tri­bu­tions to the fi­nan­cial health and per­for­mance of the econ­o­my. 

Strong news from Shell on Man­a­tee and the an­nounce­ment of ded­i­cat­ed ac­tion on To­ba­go crime are won­der­ful. But ob­jec­tive­ly, are we not in a sor­ry state?