Protecting political patronage

Former government ministers Franklyn Khan and Eric Williams have had their trials constantly adjourned. Both matters have been fixed for trial for May and June 2007 respectively. What are the chances of these cases starting before the next general election?

Khan’s matter has been fixed to proceed on a number of occasions but for one reason or another never started. Is the Magistracy playing politics or is it a case of adjournments for genuine cause.

There is a perception that watchdog institutions are too politically compliant and subservient. Take the Integrity Commission (IC) for example. It has dragged its feet on important complaints and so given the impression that government ministers are free to deceive and mislead the courts with impunity.

Chief among these is the complaint arising out of the Maha Sabha radio licence case. The IC is yet to rule on the complaints made by respected former Independent Senator Professor Julian Kenny and the Sat Maharaj of the Maha Sabha over the award of a radio broadcast licence to PNM party hack Louis Lee Sing’s Citadel Ltd in questionable circumstances.

This fact had prompted the High Court of Justice (Best J), the Court of Appeal (Hamel-Smith JA, Warner JA and Mendonca JA) and the Privy Council (Lords Heffman, Hope, Hatton, Brown and Mance) to unanimously hold that the State was guilty of discrimination against the Maha Sabha.

The Privy Council described the actions of the Government as “arbitrary and capricious.” The case revealed an intricate web of deception and intrigue on the part of high government officials to perpetuate and then conceal the discriminatory treatment of the Maha Sabha. Of particular concern is the finding by the Privy Council that the State misled the Court of Appeal and allowed it to twice give judgments on a false premise and the manner in which Permanent Secretary, Emmanuel George’s request for an explanation from Lee Sing was flippantly disregarded after a letter was written to the then minister. The judgment slammed the abuse of state power and raised an almost irrefutable case of serious wrongdoing and misconduct in public office.

The award of this radio licence to Mr Lee Sing was political favouritism as there were many people/organisations whose applications for radio broadcast licences had long been evaluated, approved and recommended for the grant of a licence pending a final decision by Cabinet.

Section 24 of the Integrity in Public Life Act reads as follows:-

24 (1) A person to whom this Part applies shall ensure that he performs his functions and administers the public resources for which he is responsible in an effective and efficient manner and shall:

(a) Be fair and impartial in exercising his public duty;

(b) Afford no undue preferential treatment to any group or individual;

(c) Arrange his private interests whether pecuniary or otherwise in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in his integrity.

(2) A person to whom this Part applies shall not:

(a) Use his office for the improper advancement of his own or his family’s personal or financial interests or the interest of any person;

(b) Engage in any transaction, acquire any position or have any commercial or other interest that is incompatible with his office, function and duty or the discharge thereof.

Subsequent to the delivery of the judgment in the Privy Council Russel Martineau SC who represented the State in the local courts issued a letter dated July 7, 2006 disavowing any knowledge of the facts that prompted the Privy Council to find that the Appeal Court was misled by the State in consequence of which it operated “under a serious misapprehension.” Mr Martineau’s letter underscored the lengths to which the Government was prepared to go to cover up its misdeeds: it was willing to hide relevant facts from its own lawyer in an effort to manipulate the administration of justice.

It is incredible and incomprehensible that the investigations of the IC (after one year) have not been concluded.

The judgment of the Privy Council is strong in its condemnation of the behaviour and conduct of senior government ministers. The judgment itself made out a strong prima facie case against the government. In any other country the IC would have dealt with such a complaint as a matter of extreme urgency.

Perhaps the plan is to delay the investigation to allow the general election to pass. Time will tell.

By Anand Ramlogan 

Site Administrator's note:
This site commends Dominic Kalipersad, Editor-in-Chief of the Trinidad Guardian, for his courage and leadership in promoting Freedom of Expression through his newspapers.

It is recommended that comments submitted to this site also be sent by email, fax, or post to the editor of the Trinidad Guardian Editor-in-chief, 22-24 St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain. Fax: 625-7211. E-mail: letters@ttol.co.tt. This will give opportunity for the Guardian to publish select responses for those without internet access.