The office of the President of the Republic of T&T became significantly diminished in the eyes of many when His Excellency George Maxwell Richards removed the chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC), Nizam Mohammed from office. Mr Mohammed generated intense and heated national discussion following his statement, at a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, that there was ethnic imbalance in the Police Service that required some redress.The Maha Sabha asked aloud, "Why has he dismissed Nizam Mohammed for speaking the truth? What wrong has Nizam done by bringing this to the attention of the national communi-ty?"
Prof Selwyn Ryan and Dr John La Guerre, directors at the Centre for Ethnic Studies, found way back in 1992 the ethnic imbalance to which Nizam made reference. They wrote: "All things being equal and given the fact that Indo-Trinidadian candidates are generally better qualified (academically), it should follow that the numbers of Indo-Trinidadians selected to training should be higher. It seems that they do less well in the interview than do their Afro-Trinidadian counterparts." Speaking shortly after taking the oath as replacement of Nizam, Prof Ramesh Deosaran said that under his watch, the Police Service Commission will examine claims of ethnic imbalance at the senior level of the Police Service. Yet his statement was not similarly met with calls for his removal.
Calls for the removal of Mohammed were most strident from the Opposition People's National Movement. They argued that President Richards' removal of Mohammed as PSC chairman represents the assertion of a principle that the presidency can be used "to contribute to the improvement and sustenance of the governance of the country." It should be noted that while the Government strongly condemned the statements of Mohammed, it never made any calls for his removal. Interestingly, the nation saw a similar situation only a mere year ago following the Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Calder Hart-led Udecott.
One daily newspaper editorial said: "Regardless of Mr Anisette protestations that he has done nothing wrong, the fact is that the Uff Commission of Enquiry has made the determination that the Udecott Board of which Mr Anisette was a director failed to protect the public purse. "In addition, the report has recommended a police probe into the $885 million Brian Lara Stadium and $368 million Legal Affairs Tower. How can Mr Anisette continue to sit as an Independent in the Senate in the face of all this?"
The editorial continued: "Throughout the Udecott sordid saga, Mr Anisette has never given us the impression of a neutral, reasoned and even-handed senator, but one set on defending Udecott, even in the face of more and more evidence-gathering to impute the firm." [Newsday, April 8th 2010]
Yet despite this and other calls for the removal of the Independent senator by the then Opposition and segments of the public, the President failed to act in a similar manner as he did with Nizam Mohammed.
The different response to similar situations begs the question: is the President of the republic politically biased? It cannot escape our collective consciousness that the President was elected by the Electoral College of the House that was dominated by the ruling PNM. It is therefore logical to conclude that the person elected to the office of the President has to be a person that the PNM supports or at least believes will support the PNM in that office. This perception that the present President is a creature of PNM support was re-enforced by the act of removing Nizam Mohammed, about which the PNM was the most vocal.
When the UNC called for the removal of Independent Senator Anisette on a similar issue of burning national import (that some argue forced a general election), it was ignored.
It is indeed unfortunate that the Constitution protects the decisions of the President from legal action. Were this protection not present the decision to remove Mohammed would have resulted in some sort of judicial review. The President used his powers under Sections 122 A (1) (d) and (f) of the Constitution to revoke Mohammed's appointment on the basis of "a lack of competence to perform his duties" and that he failed "to perform his duties in a responsible manner." Where are the examples that Mohammed lacked competence to perform his duties or that he failed to perform them in a responsible manner? It is our opinion that the President failed to develop a "prima facie" case against Mr Mohammed. Perhaps this incident can serve a higher purpose of forcing the attention of the legislature on the pressing need for constitutional reform, which has to include a degree of accountability for the decisions of the President.
The People's Partnership was elected on the mandate from the people that the Constitution of the Republic would be changed should it win government. It has been almost one year since Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has been in office, and it is time that the issue of constitutional reform be addressed!
Satnarayan Maharaj is the
secretary general of the
Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha