You are hereCreate Content / OPENNESS IS THE WATCHWORD - LORD MUSTILL!
OPENNESS IS THE WATCHWORD - LORD MUSTILL!
Rated a *****Five Star***** contribution by Site Admin
It would appear that "The Tribunal", like it or not is here to stay and is now being made Operational and Functional. The legalities of certain things I leave to the experts, but what really caught my attention, was the comment made by Lord Mustill, "openess is the watchword."
I wondered if someone may have whispered this to him on arrival, or being the learned and distinguished gentleman he is, had an "inspiration", since this (openness)is a hard and rare commodity to locate or find in certain places in Trinidad & Tobago, especially at the "higher levels".
It becomes even more rare, and even harder to find at the level he was immediately exposed to in the brief period he was here, having said he previously visited Trinidad some forty odd years ago.
How strange, his most immediate thought was "openness". Wow! What perception! What a "visionary"! to be able to see this in all of less than a day in our wonderful country. Clarvoyant maybe?
For me, the truth is that this "openness" is not only very welcome for the good of our people, it is a requirement for our healing, if there is going to be any healing, after this unfortunate saga brought upon and dumped on us by an uncaring and unthinking Prime Minister in search of some elusive vengance. Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord!
He should certainly know that and be wise enough to leave that alone to the Lord, but then Brother Hinn must have known better, being a better judge of people than I would ever be.
I am also very hopeful, that this "openness" and transparency is/and becomes contagious, to the extent that it infects and affects all of the people he comes in contact with, who in my mind will be mostly the President, the Prime Minister and those in high places who hold high offices, as they are in dire need of this malady he is talking about.
You see, these folks won't recognize "openness or transparency" if it jumps up and bites them on the nose, so they can definitely do with some of it. Its really good for them and the people they serve, even if they don't realize this themselves. They are actually there to serve the "people" - the same ones who pays their salary and expenses!
I recall one saying something to the extent, that he was not answerable to anyone or anybody, not even the courts of the land. Why should I have to tell or explain to them anything, after all, I am the President, am I not?
I recall another one singing "I have it in my backpocket", but only he knows the song, no one else, not even his closest confidantes. Why should the people know, its none of their business! I am the Prime Minister, ain't I?
And then there was yet another one saying in the "House of Parliament" that he would not provide any information because it was confidential about paying some "measly $655,000 per month" to an Airline CEO. Why should anyone know about this? I know about it and thats good enough for me, right? I am the Trade Minister, No?
So you as can see, coming back to the "Tribunal" and Lord Mustill, there is a whole lot of "Openness" to be shared, by a lot of important and influencial people in high places, namely, the Prime Minister, The Chief Magistrate, The Attorney General, and even the Chief Justice himself, seen here by the majority of people, as the victim in this whole series of accusations and allegations, rightfully or wrongfully!. The"openness" will be key factor in its determination!
So in this regard, I am very hopeful that this "Openness" and "Transparency" would be taught to as many people they come in contact with, so that this whole sad and unfortunate episode in our history at least provide some tangible and lasting benefit to the taxpaying citizens as a whole, rather than the few who in fact are the net recipients of these "handsome handouts" but have yet to learn the words "Openness" or Transparency" in their vocabulary, as though it is a foreign language to them and they are uninterested, period.
I am also quite hopeful, that the Tribunal will hold an "open mind" as I believe they would, and dispense fairness while restoring integrity in bringing to an end this sad saga in Trinidad & Tobago's history, something the people never would have wished upon themselves, save for the single-minded selfishness of our so called "leaders" of our beloved and wonderful country.
They are too busy "preening" their own feathers to see the wanton destruction being caused by their selfish and mindless actions or to hear the wailing voices of their people crying for help in the "wilderness"!
What a shame, What a collosal shame on them, etched in our memories and for which history will never forget!
Goodluck and Godbless! Trinit.o.o.
- 1213 reads
I wonder if Lord Mustill really understands what T&T gives. I hope he has time to read some of the very good stuff our supporters are putting up here.
My prediction is that Lord Mustill will find himself working in a tunnel and made only to see the walls he is shown. The may be open in showing us the walls of the tunnel but that doesn't mean that the builders of the tunnel allow him 'openness'. His gift is not their gift.
I've seen this phenomenon too many times in the courts. Judges are often set up to see what they are allowed to see by rules of evidence etc. They can't know what they don't know. So I don't know what degree of 'openness' Lord Mustill thinks he will offer - we will have to wait and see.
If he is allowed to be 100% open then many of the 'disrespectful' questions asked by Cindy Bhagwandeen of the President should be answered by Lord Mustill et al - not directly but en passant. If the tribunal itself has been formed in breach of the Constitution surely Lord Mustill must want to be open about that - because all that springs from the Tribunal will be illegal.
Seeing that the President found reason - known only to himself so far - to put down Cindy's questions as 'disrespectful' I'm betting that Lord Mustill will stay far from those questions.
I hope Anand and others are sharpening their swords to raise an issue of illegality about the formation of the Tribunal - should Lord Mustill et al be confined to a narrow tunnel by the politicians.
Captain Walker, I share your views fully, but these are the "inner fears" that we only think about and "hope" it never materializes into reality.
That of being "tainted" by osmosis, by association and familiarity, and becoming equally corrupt and distorted in the end. In short, becoming one of them too?
My reason for saying so, is that Lord Mustill's initial statement on the "openness" came out of the blue as a breath of fresh air out the desert of emptiness created by the current regime.
So this was of course reason for joy and hope that some sanity will come out of this regrettable exercise. Some sense of fairness and equity will prevail. Some measure of justice will be meted out to those truly deserving justice, in the end.
But that was being too realistic in thinking and far removed from the pragmatic world we live in and to which you so rightly jolted my mind to in time and quickly too!. Your thoughts and reflections are quite valid, as I'll try to explain.
My next reading of Lord Mustill's statements appearing on the newsmedia of Saturday July 28, 2007 "CJ Tribunal goes Public" brought some more hope and excitement to me, but this was short-lived and confirmed your comments, as I read further into the article and to quote:
"SUSPENDED Chief Justice Sat Sharma wants to cross-examine Prime Minister Patrick Manning before the tribunal appointed to investigate whether he (Sharma) should be removed from office for misbehaviour."
In his written submissions before the three-member tribunal, British Queen’s Counsel Geoffrey Robertson made it quite clear that the following witnesses would be required to give evidence — Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, British QC Sir Timothy Cassel, Prime Minister Manning, Attorney General John Jeremie, CL Financial officials’ Louis Monteil, Anthony Maharaj and Michael Fifi, attorney Michael Quamina, DPP Geoffrey Henderson, banker Krishendath Ramoutar and Justice of Appeal Stanley John.
But retired Privy Council Judge Lord Mustill, who chairs the tribunal, said, “we are the masters, we will decide who to permit for cross-examination. There is no question of every Tom, Dick, Harry or Harriet coming to give evidence.”
Mustill also responded to objections by Sharma’s lawyers of Armour’s role before the tribunal. The former Law Lord said the President, by letter dated June 26, appointed Armour as counsel to assist the tribunal.
“Counsel for the tribunal is wholly independent of any participation in this case. He is there to assist the tribunal and the public. He will not be involved in the decision which this tribunal makes, he will not be involved in the discussions or in our findings which we will send to the President. He will not be involved in this exercise.” unquote.
If Lord Mustill, "the master" will decide who will be cross examined and who not, even long before hearing any arguments or the rationale for it, this is to me very troubling in that, he may already have been exposed to some preconceived notions of his own or provided to him even before the hearing has started.
Would this be coming from information and material presented to the tribunal before-hand by the President's Office to brief them on the file? Private discussions they may have had so far with a variety of different people exposed to them?
The very thought of his (Lord Mustill) as to whom they will allow to be cross examined by the defence counsel is of concern, moreso than allow the cross examination to proceed and then rule on questions being asked as to whether they are pertinent or germane to the hearing?
It is in this regard I am of the belief that your comments are very valid and may and can give rise to the Tribunal putting on a "show" for the people of this country, for reasons that can only be speculative at this time. A Grand Pappy show as they say!
It is for this reason, I say that I am also "hoping against hope" that this does not materialize, and that The Tribunal stand tall in integrity and principle, and hold an open mind in listening to all those who were involved in this "fiasco" of who said what to whom and when and where. Let the truth be told, the whole truth.
Then and only then, let justice prevail, let the chips fall where they may.
Emancipate our people from the said chains placed on them for the second time around by the same so called leaders who so frequently walk about and talk about freedom. Some "ole talk" only eh?.
I am "hoping against hope" that I am not being "overly optimistic" in my thoughts. That the "Lord" and "Knight" are truly who they say they are for a change!
I hope there is someone, somewhere up there truly looking out for us, for as you pointed out previously, this will be the most crucial and telling time coming in the history of our country.!
The burden of so much pain and agony inflicted on us by one or two selfish and uncaring men that will remain with us...
Long after the Tribunal has come and gone.!
Goodluck and Godbless. Trini.t.o.o.
Jumbie, I agree with you that the public and the media might provide some checks and balances from a "public" perpective, and Lord Mustill also said in one of his initial statements, that he expected the "truth" be reported. This gives some comfort up to a point.
My fear is though that he has "laid out" his groundwork for acceptence of "witnesses", and to that extent the public and the media will not have much influence on his decision to "allow" or "not allow" certain witnesses as has been requested by the defence solicitors, whatever might be his rationale for doing so.
My expectation therefore, will be that the defence lawyers would have to be ready to "vigorously argue" for every inch of ground they want to get in this hearing.
Remember also, that the Tribunal was based on members selected or recommended by the Prime Minster's advice to the President. Does this have any impact?. I don't know.!
I can also say openly, and it is my view only, that I am not overly impressed by "Lordships" as there are several in the U.K who have brought disrepute to their title, and the "Lords" are reluctant to have their "Lordship" titles revoked. They don't want to attract "anymore negative publicity" than necessary.
Then there is also one "Lord Black of CrossHarbour", Conrad Black who has now been convicted on four counts in Chicago, including "mail fraud" and "obstruction of justice" and is presently awaiting sentencing, reports are that he faces up to 30 years in jail.
This is an example of what lots of money can do to good people, even "Lords".
But even if he did not get the full 30 years, it is expected that "he will go to jail".
My point is that these are people nevertheless like anyone else, and strange things happen when you least think about it. Money can and do make people do funny things, Lords including!
My hunch on this one though, is that the Tribunal will be hardpressed to refuse the defence request for witnesses of their asking, and for them to be cross examined, especially when there are so much evidence out in the open about the "dealings" and "communications" between them all, including Patrick, Sherman and the AG. Afterall, this is what the Tribunal is all about! Isn't it? My bets are on yes!
Like yourself I wish I could have been there in person, I think it would have been worth it, but I can't.
I'll look on from the sidelines.
So let the games begin!
Goodluck and Godbless.Trini.t.o.o.
As the Tribunal on the impeachment of the Chief Justice moves forward, it appears that suddenly people in high places suddenly all getting the "cross examination" jitters, now right down to the most senior "law officer" of the land, the Attorney General himself.
What a collosal shame for justice and for the people in Trinidad and Tobago!!
As was expected from the outset, there were more than met the eye in this whole shameful saga perpetrated on the people of Trinidad and Tobago by the Prime Minister.
But now as "allegations and accusations" are flying out left right and centre at the Tribunal hearing, named parties are all choosing to absent themselves from refuting those allegations personally, but instead relying solely on filing "statements" in their defence.
This started in the beginning with the Chief Magistrate who refused to testify at the criminal hearing causing its collapse, and now the refusal by the Attorney General to appear to refute the "things" being said that transpired and to which its claimed he had some personal involvement and knowledge of in the land dealings and transactions with the Chief Magistrate and others.
A truly sad example being set by the most Senior Officers of the court in the land.
And then further the sudden disappearance of Andre Monteil,CL Financial Executive and the Treasurer of the PNM and another named party in this sad saga going on, together with Michael Anthony Fifi, Home Construction Executive, also another named in this "unholy fiasco".
What is amazing, is that the AG response in part, and I quote:
In his letter yesterday, Jeremie emphatically said there was “no truth” to the allegation made against him by Sharma’s lawyers, adding: “I have not seen any evidence, even remotely, supporting the imputations which counsel for the Chief Justice has made. Indeed, the evidence before the tribunal contradicts any such imputations.”
He added that, there being no evidence of the alleged conspiracies to which he could reply, he was unable to discern any way in which he could usefully assist the tribunal.
John Jeremie, like the Chief Magistrate before, is his own Judge and Jury, and the expectation is that their words are gospel and should be taken as such, without question?.
He has all by his lonely self "found no truth or evidence" in the allegations made in the imputations.
No one should be able to "test" their so called statement of the events. "Just trust me, I'm telling the truth?"
There is some, but little comfort in Lord Mustill's response, "
But Lord Mustill, while acknowledging that the tribunal had no power to compel the AG to testify, said: “We’re not naive by his attitude…we’re not completely own-headed over here…his absence and attitude will be taken into account.”
And from another news source report, Lord Mustill says:"
The Attorney General has effectively prevented himself from being cross-examined. There are a number of questions we would have like to have asked..."
"...How can it be right that a proceedure designed primarily for the exploration of allegations against officials should be operated so as to trump the actions of the impeachment proceedings under the constitution. It seems wrong in principle, but there it is"...Mustill remarked.
What a shameful example being set by the most senior officials of the Judiciary in the land, and for the citizens of the country to follow?. What role models? What mentors for the youths of today?
It is truly an uphill battle for the Tribunal to carry out its task, in the absence of "uncompleted evidence".
This was not "unexpected" however, as this was merely a charade to distract the people from "other ailments" which troubles the country, and to which lies deeper than the naked eye can see. And from the very top offices too, at that!
This is a wake up call for sure! Take heed Trinbagonians.! Take heed, please!.
The "OPENNESS" Lord Mustill spoke of on his arrival has suddenly evaporated like a "puff in the wind", and the plague of secrecy and cover-ups continues unabated as the Tribunal struggles onwards hoping for a "miracle" from above.
We are now left to wait for the "next events" in this unfolding sad saga, as it winds down to its "final chapter".
Its is my view that there will be left over more "unanswered questions" than answers received by the Tribunal.
But as Mahatma Gandhi would have said, this is only "an experimentation with the truth", this is not the truth itself!
In closing, I would like to share a piece by Robert Bringhurst, titled from "NAGARJUNA" (the philisopher) which I read many many years ago and I found has so much truth to it, that it applies not only to our daily lives;but also to what is transpiring during the course of the Tribunal hearing; I quote in part:"
All positions are prisons, No truth is true, No instruction is certain, No Knowledge is complete, If I speak for the Serpent, the Serpent may speak for the Bird, My position is that I have no position, This too, all fiction is true.!"
I hope we will all learn a valuable lesson from this and that in the end, truth will prevail, and by extension, justice will also.
In growing up, my late father constantly reminded me - "he who loses "wealth", loses nothing, he who loses "health",loses something, but he who loses "character" have lost it ALL!.
To most of them, they are there already, but don't realize it, poor lost souls, from the preacher right down to his flock!
Wake up my friends, wake up before it's too late in the day!
Good luck and godbless. Trini.t.o.o.