Trinicenter.com
Trinidad and Tobago News
 
 Time
Caribbean Links

COLUMNISTS
Ras Tyehimba  
Susan Edwards  
Dr. K Nantambu  
Winford James  
Dr. S Cudjoe  
Raffique Shah  
Terry Joseph  
Bukka Rennie  
Denis Solomon  
Stephen Kangal  
Corey Gilkes  
A.S. Leslie  
Shelagh Simmons  
Guest Writers  

Affiliates
TriniSoca.com  
TriniView.com  
Trinbago Pan  
Nubian School  
RaceandHistory.com  
Rootsie.com  
RootsWomen  
HowComYouCom  
AmonHotep.com  
Africa Speaks  
Rasta Times  
US Crusade  


Reform - that's what the country really needs
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2002

By Percy Cezair

An opinion is simply a belief. It is not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge, but on what seems true, valid or probable to one's own mind.

In law, it may arise from formal advice from lawyers or statements from judges.

Thus two lawyers appearing on either side of a particular case may have two opposing opinions on the interrelation of the law as it relates to that case.

A judge hearing the case may render a judgment which does not coincide with either opinion.

The higher the matter goes on appeal, each of several judges also may have different opinions.

Eventually it becomes a mathematical equation as the opinion of a final majority.

However, that same majority, or another group of judges, rendering a subsequent final judgment on a similar matter, may produce a totally different opinion or even reverse itself.

Legal arguments and opinions on the President's decision to appoint Mr Manning as Prime Minister are therefore simply what seems valid, true or probable in the minds of individuals.

However, what in the end prevails is the sole opinion of the President arising out of his own judgment, notwithstanding any advice received.

Obviously there are legal practitioners who strongly disagree with the President's decision.

One in particular published an article in the Guardian of January 8, from which I quote:

"Faced with an 18-18 deadlock, however, it is submitted it was impossible for the President to choose someone who was likely to command the majority support.

"In an 18-18 deadlock the basis for the exercise of this power is non-existent and it therefore cannot be exercised."
In my article of December 25, 2001, I had written:

"Under 76 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, there is no real option open to him (the President) as a result of the 18-18 tie."

However, that article took the matter beyond the narrow confines of a strict interpretation of Section 76(1) (a) and (b).
It raised further questions arising from the circumstances surrounding the agreement between Panday and Manning. I quote:

"Both Messrs Panday and Manning have agreed and publicly stated that they would accept whoever he appoints as Prime Minister."

It was this agreement by the two leaders, including its agenda, written and signed, which provided the President with the opportunity to use his discretion under Section 76 (1) (b).

The agreement could have only one interpretation.

They were in effect advising the President "we are prepared to support, with the seats we command (in total 36), whoever you may choose to appoint Prime Minister" (albeit for the purposes of this agreement)

Therein lies the most tragic miscalculation of Panday's political career.

Whether it was his intention to play smart by ditching the written agreement should he be retained in office by the President. Or, heaven forbid, he was using it purely as a ruse to ease himself back into power.

Or, as some believe, he always intended to stick with the agreement but, facing a backlash from influential party stalwarts, he was forced to backtrack. For him an obvious contradiction.

Whatever the reasons, he appears to have been caught in his own trap.

There are also, of course, those who infer this was a private agreement which could not enlarge the President's powers vested by the Constitution.

What private agreement?

These were two political leaders with 18 seats each, legally recognised to make such an agreement on behalf of their parties, who were willing to put their signatures where their mouths were.

This was no private game with little boys pitching marbles.

This was serious critical business affecting the people's future and the country's Constitution.

Had Panday publicly repudiated all agreements with Manning before the President had made his decision, he would not have eased or created for the President the opening made available under Section 76(1) (b).

But he certainly would have paid a heavy political price for doing so.

In my December 25 article, written before that date, I had also indicated Mr Robinson had a habit of quoting the preamble to the Constitution.

It is no wonder, therefore, he chose Manning.

The UNC is apparently taking the President's decision to court.

What are they instructing their lawyers to plead? To ask a judge to determine failed politics?



Email page Send page by E-Mail