The revocation of the ministerial appointment by His Excellency President George Maxwell Richards on the advice of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has caused ambivalent reactions, mostly endorsing the PM's actions. What needs immediate clarification is the incomparable comparisons being made in some circles with other individuals. The arguments put forth that other high officeholders' appointments being terminated showed a consistency in the actions of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar. A former senior minister in the PP Government was accused of impropriety in the award of a contract to the minister's family business. Allegations were made and then substantiated by the relevant officers of the ministry after an investigation was launched. The chief accounting officer of the ministry provided e-mails, reports/documentation that demonstrated the minister did not adopt an arms-length approach in the award of the contract. The deputy to the chief accounting officer and other senior heads gave testimony. The PM took action as much as she could under her remit and revoked the appointment.
That did not fully satisfy it as the minister broke the Integrity in Public Life Act and as such the Integrity Commission had to do their bit of investigation as well.
An ambassador/consular general was alleged to have behaved improperly with the statements they publicly made at an important convention. It was rumoured to be videotaped and aired on YouTube. An investigation was done on the allegation and substantiated as the video and the session was televised and documented. As a result, the ambassador's tour of duty will be terminated and they will return home. One would also remember that allegations were made that a senior Cabinet minister under the former administration was accused of using government funds (taxpayers' money) to buy wigs at an emporium in the US, using the money for infertility treatments at a US health facility. Documentation was brought to the Parliament from the Ministry of Finance by the then Opposition to substantiate the allegations. The senior minister was never removed or disciplined, although the Government at the time claimed that the penalty was that the senior minister was never made a minister again in subsequent governments or asked to be a Member of Parliament. The senior minister was, however, made an ambassador/consular general to a first-world territory. The former junior minister in the Ministry of National Security, according to the report submitted, was asked on more than one occasion on that day to take a breathalyser test after the law enforcement agents had good reason to request it given their observations. Section 70 (B) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act is very clear. The breathalyser test can be applied to persons who are "driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place."
Questions still loom as to why the junior minister was not charged with a criminal offence after he refused to take the test and also allowed to leave the station without being charged. The charge is typically laid on non-compliant drivers. The Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act states that a person who fails to provide the police with a breathalyser test without reasonable excuse is liable to a fine of $8,000 or up to 3 years imprisonment. The junior minister refused according to the police reports and only gave in when the interim police commissioner arrived and requested it. The Prime Minister once again acted within her remit and revoked the minister's appointment. She is not the Director of Public Prosecutions who makes the recommendation for charges to be laid and the police execute as such. When charges are to be laid is not up to the Prime Minister or any other member of the executive arm of the state. Over time, we know that allegations have been levied against many public figures. There is a case where two very senior Cabinet ministers under the former administration were found guilty of breaking the Integrity in Public Life Act by the Integrity Commission in April 2010.
The submission/file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions-an independent officeholder insulated from political interference for action. The case is still before the DPP, so the former Cabinet ministers are still innocent until the DPP's verdict, which, if he concurs with the Integrity Commission, will be sent to the police for action. So too, allegations in jurisdictions such as ours are made against high officeholders all the time but action can only be taken if substantiated. If not, probably more than 75 per cent of ministers, members of Parliament or the judiciary would not have jobs if we went by unsubstantiated allegations. Remember an allegation is a statement purporting something that needs to be verified and proven. The Prime Minister is to be commended once again for prompt action and doing all she could within her power. It is left up to the other authorities to do their part. The Prime Minister cannot interfere nor influence the work and actions of the Police Service and the DPP.
Mrs Hazel Wiltshire-Horsford
Plaisance Park