Having heard the various arguments for and against the call for Jack Warner to step aside from his ministerial duties pending his suspension and investigations by Fifa, objectivity appears to be in short order. Many citizens have offered opinions informed by their likeness or dislike for Mr Warner. Even within the People's Partnership and the COP's hierarchy, opposing views prevail that force thoughts on guidelines and processes or the lack thereof. A fundamental argument purported by Mr Warner and his supporters tells that Fifa's business and that of the Government are two completely different things. Consequently, his unabated functioning as a Government Minister here in Trinidad & Tobago cannot hinder or influence Fifa's investigations, and so, "stepping aside" does not arise. However, Minister Warner's detractors will disagree in recognising that human traits form part of who we are. It means that if one was found to be unethical in perhaps Australia then he/she may be perceived to be unethical in T&T too.
Another critical opposing aspect Mr Warner faces relates to the recent firing of Mary King from the Government, which was based on the lack of integrity. We know that story well and it is felt that because of the integrity/ethic commonality between the King and Warner's dilemmas that the latter must be made to relinquish his ministerial portfolio. Put another way, people see the Prime Minister's support for Mr Warner as breaking the precedence set with Mrs King and enshrined in the Partnership's manifesto, the removal of errant or poor performing ministers. Still, the ones who uphold this view turn a blind eye to the fact espoused by Sports Minister, Anil Roberts. Ex-minister King admitted to elements of impropriety relative to the contracting of a company owned by her husband. This fact clearly omitted the need to investigate. Conversely, Mr Warner admits to no guilt or wrongdoing, thus setting the two issues apart. Emerging from these issues is the need by our leaders to be wary of how they treat with allegations. Certainly, every complaint against a member of Government or the Opposition cannot warrant that official "stepping aside" pending investigations. So only the serious allegations must be noted and addressed accordingly. But how do we determine what is serious in this context?
The citizenry will recall when less than two years ago, the then prime minister, Patrick Manning imputed that Dr Rowley embezzled $10 million. This drama was played out in Parliament and aired on national television. We will also recall the Landate affair where Dr Rowley was to a degree being implicated in malfeasance. But did Dr Rowley "do the right thing" and remove himself from office to allow investigations to proceed on any of those occasions? Many people felt that these were serious allegations of corruption. So we see that the call to step down from office can be a convenient gimmick. Moreover, to say that an official in high public office or that of influence must step aside to facilitate the investigation into serious allegations made against him/her is a farce; and will remain as such until the authorities define what allegations constitute a rating of serious in this context, since if such a narration exists, it surely isn't being referenced. In essence, there appears to be no law forcing Mr Warner to step away from his ministerial portfolio pending the outcome of Fifa's investigations. As a result of this and based on his sterling performance as Works and Transport minister together with his strong refutation of allegations made against him, Mr Warner has every right to continue his good ministerial work.
Dexter Rigsby
Mt Lambert