JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 25, 2025

Attacks on independent senators improper and unseemly

by

Orin Gordon
19 days ago
20250706
Orin Gordon

Orin Gordon

In the Tom and Jer­ry pol­i­tics of Trinidad and To­ba­go, it’s al­most nev­er ac­knowl­edged that two things can be true at once. Chris­tine Kan­ga­loo’s nom­i­na­tion to the pres­i­den­cy by then prime min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley was prob­lem­at­ic, even provoca­tive. On the oth­er hand, the Gov­ern­ment’s re­cent sharp at­tacks on the leg­isla­tive in­tegri­ty of the in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tors that Pres­i­dent Kan­ga­loo ap­point­ed were im­prop­er, un­seem­ly and un­fair.

In nom­i­nat­ing the at­tor­ney and Pres­i­dent of the Sen­ate to be the Pres­i­dent in 2023, Row­ley was pre­sent­ing to the elec­toral col­lege some­one deeply en­tan­gled in his par­ty, and who’d served in a num­ber of of­fices of the PNM gov­ern­ment. She’d act­ed as Pres­i­dent on sev­er­al oc­ca­sions–as the pres­i­dent of the Sen­ate does–but it did not mean that she was a pru­dent choice to hold the high­er of­fice per­ma­nent­ly.

This is not a slight against Kan­ga­loo–in­tel­li­gent, mag­is­te­r­i­al and who, frankly, looks born to the role. Un­der­stand­ably, the Pres­i­dent did not have the trust of the UNC then, and she does not have it now. Even if she in­ter­prets her pres­i­den­tial brief con­sci­en­tious­ly and acts fas­tid­i­ous­ly straight down the mid­dle, past and per­cep­tion can nev­er be erased.

Per­cep­tion mat­ters in all ar­eas. Renowned Eng­lish um­pire Dick­ie Bird op­er­at­ed at a time when home um­pires stood in in­ter­na­tion­al match­es. Vis­it­ing play­ers liked and trust­ed Bird. Oth­er um­pires, such as Fred Goodall of New Zealand, be­came en­meshed in con­tro­ver­sy, with vis­it­ing play­ers ac­cus­ing them of bias. Trust in um­pire Bird re­mained even when the vis­i­tors dis­agreed with a de­ci­sion that Bird gave in favour of an Eng­land play­er.

Crick­et’s gov­ern­ing body, the ICC, un­der­stood that the stakes were too high and the per­cep­tion of neu­tral­i­ty was too im­por­tant to con­tin­ue to have home um­pires stand. Over time, they in­tro­duced neu­tral um­pires; strength­ened ad­ju­di­ca­tion with a TV um­pire, a match ref­er­ee and De­ci­sion Re­view Sys­tem (DRS) tech­nol­o­gy. Those mea­sures did not elim­i­nate mis­takes, but they went a long way to­wards restor­ing trust in de­ci­sion-mak­ing.

Gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials em­ployed the Or­wellian ar­gu­ment that in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tors should prove their in­de­pen­dence by rub­ber-stamp­ing leg­is­la­tion from a gov­ern­ing par­ty with a huge par­lia­men­tary ma­jor­i­ty, the Prime Min­is­ter’s Pen­sion (Amend­ment) Bill, 2025. We can nev­er know how many of the in­de­pen­dent sen­a­tors who vot­ed for the leg­is­la­tion did so be­cause of the heavy pres­sure of the at­tacks, or out of gen­uine con­vic­tion that it was sound. The pained looks on their faces dur­ing the tele­vised voice vote sug­gest that the at­tacks got to them. Those who did not sup­port it should have had the leg­isla­tive courage to vote “no”. Their own ar­gu­ments sug­gest­ed that they had a du­ty to.

I’m not a lawyer, but to para­phrase US Supreme Court Jus­tice Pot­ter Stew­art in Ja­co­bel­lis v Ohio in 1964, even those of us who have rudi­men­ta­ry pow­ers of an­a­lyt­i­cal think­ing ought to recog­nise bad law when we see it. The law seems des­tined for the Privy Coun­cil, like­ly through proxy chal­lenge.

With Stu­art Young, the prob­lem wasn’t the fix. The prin­ci­ple of a tiered sys­tem of ben­e­fits is sound and sen­si­ble. It was the retroac­tive reach-back that clear­ly tar­get­ed him. Look, I don’t like it that a PM as short-tenured as Young can get full whack af­ter six weeks in of­fice, but here’s how I look at things. Young didn’t set out to be PM for a month and a half. He sought a longer man­date on April 28, but the elec­torate had oth­er ideas.

Ben­e­fits and the qual­i­fi­ca­tion prin­ci­ples un­der­ly­ing them some­times come un­der scruti­ny. For (im­per­fect) ex­am­ple, the 26-year-old wife of the 86-year-old bil­lion­aire should not have to for­feit her le­gal en­ti­tle­ment to a share of his es­tate up­on his death, be­cause she’d on­ly been mar­ried to him for a short time.

There’s a prob­a­bil­i­ty of the law lords ad­min­is­ter­ing a ju­di­cial slap on the T&T Gov­ern­ment when the in­evitable ap­peal makes its way to their dock­et. Liz Truss was prime min­is­ter of Britain for sev­en weeks. The Labour gov­ern­ment of Sir Keir Starmer did not try to strong-arm her out of her ben­e­fits.

The irony of all of this is that Row­ley, a sci­en­tist, en­gi­neered the as­cen­sion of both Young and Kan­ga­loo. Both ac­tions col­lid­ed in the Sen­ate last week.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored