The Prime Minister reportedly passed on the HRM's letter to the Attorney General, though as quoted by the OPM, it was the Chief State Solicitor who replied to Dr Kublalsingh. The latter said on Sunday that he had not received the letter, but learned of it from the media. The OPM therefore seems to have been premature in issuing a release about the letter even before the addressee had received it.
Up to the time of writing, confusion reigned yesterday over a media release from the Office of the Prime Minister, issued on Sunday morning, which purported to cite a letter from the Chief State Solicitor.The Chief State Solicitor's office is a crucial but very low-key institution, so the abrasive tone of part of this letter has attracted considerable attention.The release said the letter was written on September 10 to Dr Wayne Kublalsingh, leader of the protest group the Highway Re-route Movement, who has said he is considering embarking on a second hunger strike in order to elicit a response to his group from the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister reportedly passed on the HRM's letter to the Attorney General, though as quoted by the OPM, it was the Chief State Solicitor who replied to Dr Kublalsingh.The latter said on Sunday that he had not received the letter, but learned of it from the media.The OPM therefore seems to have been premature in issuing a release about the letter even before the addressee had received it. The letter began by advising Dr Kublalsingh, not unreasonably, that the matter was still before the court, whose ruling should be awaited.
But what made readers sit up and take notice was the final two paragraphs, which warned Dr Kublalsingh that if he went on hunger strike again, "Such action would lead to consequences and risks, which are unknown. However, you do so at your own peril. While you have the right to protest in a lawful manner, the State has the duty and responsibility to protect life... "The State...will not be persuaded by the actions of a man who seeks sympathy and empathy from the population in support of the cause. Should the State adopt such a cause, it would lead only to anarchy and tyranny and compromise the rule of law and the democracy, which we as a people have grown to enjoy and protect."
In response to media comment on the harshness of these admonishments, the Chief State Solicitor, Christophe Grant, broke his rule of not talking to the media and gave a radio interview–to say he did not write the letter and would not have done so, as he considered it unprofessional and tinged with politics and did not want to be regarded as having provoked Dr Kublalsingh into starting the threatened hunger strike. Pointing out that this was a matter of "a man's life and death," he explained, "I have a lot of respect for people's lives and I don't want to be associated with my children's thoughts etc, as the one telling the man on the ledge, 'Go ahead, jump off.'"
So how did the letter come to be issued by his office? Did he sign it?Mr Grant says no, and sought to distance himself further, surmising that perhaps an attorney acting for the State had told a junior attorney in his office to sign it.In that case, how could a junior attorney send such a letter to Dr Kublalsingh and/or to the OPM without a senior person vetting it first? Even if Mr Grant did not personally write or sign the letter, he is still responsible for letters issued by his office.Alternatively, if there are checks and balances in place at the Chief State Solicitor's office and the letter did not come from there, then who wrote it?These questions must be answered.