Second Presidential Response

The second response is worse than the first.

It appears that the statement that I made on May, 15 2009, has been misunderstood.

It was not misunderstood at all. Why should it be misunderstood by so many? Mr President you need to understand that there is a collective understanding about your so-called apology and what sprung from your actions - amongst people who actually know more than you about democracy and sovereignty - namely, the likes of Martin Daly for example. The sum of all that understanding is greater than that residing in your head.

Let me emphasise, therefore, that any lack of clarity was unintentional. It is being said that I did not offer an apology to the nation. May I say that my expression of regret was intended to convey just that – an apology. I have noted that the word regret is used in polite formulas to express apology or sadness, but if it would give comfort to those who have a different interpretation of the word, I say now that I apologise.

Mr President your 'so-called' apology was useless. It has been properly analysed for form and content. See here.

On the matter of confirmation of appointments, the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 in Part II, Section 4 (4) is clear, that is to say, that the President appoints, after consulting both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. After consultation, the President may decide that his choices stand or he may choose to take a different course, based on the consultation, or for any other reason.

Except that is factually the case that there is no evidence that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were actually consulted. We shall not play with words Mr President - 'consult' means a real consultation - not the mere sending of a letter, for example, asking whether there are objections/concerns. In any case, for appointments of such Constitutional importance a reasonable person would expect at least a brief meeting rather than a simple exchange of letters. I conclude that the sending of a letter is not a consultation for the purposes of such appointments and in the relevant situation the requirements of the Statute were not met. Your words suggest a lack of appreciation for the foundations of democracy and the exercise of sovereign power.

Confirming an invitation to serve does not mean that someone else was party to the confirmation or directed it.

Point taken

I maintain that there never was and there is no constitutional crisis based on the vacancies on the Integrity Commission or because of my absence from Trinidad and Tobago. The absence from the country of the President does not in itself create a constitutional crisis, as provision is made, in Chapter 3, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution, for the duties of President to be carried out in his absence by the President of the Senate, as has happened in the past.

You missed the point entirely and focus on the irrelevant.  The Constitutional crisis is the result of the Head of State making one ab initio appointment and participating in or allowing persons who were not fit for office to be appointed to a body of Constitutional importance. A Head of State cannot do that, not even allowing for human error - and to do so leads to a serious loss of confidence in the office of the President, as has happened. It no longer matters whether you believe otherwise. The loss of confidence is palpable - it slaps you in the face.

In the face of the resignation of Justice Hosein and subsequently those of Mr Mc Farlane and Father Charles, there have been calls for me to explain what could have led to those resignations and therefore, to reveal what might or might not have been said between myself and those nominees, prior to their appointment.

By the demands being made for answers and explanations, I am being required, in effect, to enter into debate regarding statements made by persons who were invited to become members of the Integrity Commission, in order, perhaps, to establish, inter alia, the veracity of what has been said by them. Put another way, I am being encouraged, by these demands, to put up a defence, which is the very interpretation of my statement that has provoked ire. May I say that, as President, I will not put in the public domain the conversations, of a confidential nature, that I held with anyone concerning the invitations to serve. That, in my view, is unseemly and not befitting the Office.

Utter drivel. Your bungling in the whole matter beggars belief and is of such proportion that nothing short of a full explanation of your actions will suffice. You are accountable to the people of this country and on this occasion you duck behind matters of confidentiality? No way! You can not just create a monumental mess and then say (for example), 'Sorry it's confidential, why I did what I did'. All who bungle are required to account for their actions - and the onus to account is proportionately greater upon those in positions of power.

I wish to make it abundantly clear that resignation from office holds no terror for me. The central consideration in any step that I take in this matter must be the welfare of the country. Resignation gives no guarantee of that and I will not allow the situation to be so manipulated as to result in yielding to pressure fuelled by lack of deep consideration of all the issues pertinent to resignation.

This is getting very serious now. If the welfare of the country was your prime concern, perhaps in the first instance you would have demonstrated the required degree of diligence in the making of the appointments to the IC. No such diligence was tangible. So to seek to justify you remaining in office on grounds of concerns for welfare of this country, seems rather devoid of substance.

I have already apologised for error of judgment. To err is not to act disreputably.

And not to demonstrate self-awareness or awareness of the seriousness of your errors is to bring dishonour upon yourself. Your words are now etched in history. You compound your errors. You made irreversible and indelible errors of judgement that were quite different in nature and degree from someone accidentally knocking over and breaking a valuable vase. You are the Head of State - and I seem to need to remind you that the kind of errors you made are not tolerable or pardonable. We are talking about running a country - not about getting coloured clothes mixed in with the white clothes in my washing machine, by human error. 

I have noted and listened carefully to the comments expressed by members of the public and have given the matter due consideration. I do not share the opinion held by some that I have brought the office of President of the Republic of T&T into disrepute and accordingly, see no reason to resign or to engage in further debate on the matter.

And for doing all this you still have been unable to see that you ought to resign. You have therefore reached the stage where no amount of evidence or opinion shall move you. This is not the mark of a true and honourable leader. Your place in history is now blemished  by your own hand, forever.

I wish to thank the many individuals who have written or spoken in measured support of me. It is my hope that we, as a nation, will move on.

Support by a few misguided individuals does not put you in the 'right'. And to acknowledge their support is to part further from common sense. This nation will not move on. 'Move on'? - that is Trini ol' talk. You need to move on and allow this nation to repair itself.

The matters surrounding the Integrity Commission, which have occasioned negative fallout, have given us the opportunity to see that democracy is alive in T&T.

What! You and your office have just created the utmost disrespect and serious damage to our democracy - a mortal wound that could pave the way for collapse of democracy and replacement by a dictatorship - and you assert that democracy is 'alive'. The thing is almost dead! You now risk the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship - is that the place in history you wish for. Mark my words - all who read this.

Denial does you no good. It is a useless psychological defence in these times. Overcome your 'self' Prof Richards - and truly put this nation ahead of 'you'. You certainly demonstrate a need to 'defend' your personal integrity - by your use of the words 'to put up a defence'. No one is asking you do defend anything. This is a matter of accountability to the people. What part can 'defence' have in that? None?

Notably through your both responses, is a clear avoidance of any sense of logical explanation or accountability, as to how Justice Hosein could - after he directly confirmed the appointment with you - have been suddenly appointed to an office he had not even agreed to! The whole thing was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority applying the rules and the logic, could have acted in the way you did. Your legal advisors should note that I am aware that you are above judicial review. But that is not your shield. That you are outside of the scope of judical review means exactly that there is almost no room for fettering discretion or fettering application to your duties.

This should give pause for serious thought and reinforce our determination to guard it and to improve on it. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Good night and may God bless T&T.

If God is alive s/he will indeed guide the Nation to that which is reasonable and logical. We - this Nation - sincerely hope that the hand of God will also touch you  - and enlighten you to see that your resignation is now required - and you should face it and do it, without fear or terror as you say.