You are herePresidential Apology?
Presidential Apology?
The response by the President of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago is given below. This is the response to the fiasco caused by appointments of persons to the Integrity Commission.
"The occasion arose in February of this year for the appointment of an entirely new membership of commissioners to the Integrity Commission. In every respect that was an unprecedented occasion and one which presented challenges for our young nation. Notwithstanding the many challenges, on the first day of May 2009, I was well pleased to appoint five distinguished citizens to office. The process by which the members of this commission were and are to be chosen and appointed is one of the few in which, under the Constitution, the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago makes his own deliberate judgment.
This process carries within it the inherited residue of the former prerogative, which was vested in the Queen. Indeed, it has been said most recently by the Privy Council in the Trinity Cross judgment that the prerogative survives today, albeit in very restricted form and subject ultimately to the modern Republican Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.
It is a legitimate question to ask, what is the meaning of this prerogative and, what is the degree of the residue? So far as the prerogative survives, the question is also to be asked, what are the checks and balances provided to its due exercise, within our constitutional and modern democratic structure? That democratic structure itself promotes a discerning public appropriately demanding accountability from its highest Office.
The Constitution of modern Trinidad and Tobago endows the President with this power of appointment in his own deliberate judgment, as an executive act, subject to susceptibility to human fallibility and supported by the checks and balances of a process of consultation with other important constitutional institutions within our parliamentary and democratic framework. It is, however, the foundation of the office and this prerogative, supported by all that is explicit and implicit in the Constitution, that the Office of President is and must remain above the cut and thrust of partisan politics.
The observation is made, without comment, that the recent practice of partisan politics seeks to embroil the Office of President in terms which the constitutional insulation does not permit. Thus it is today that the Office of President is the recipient of a regular flow of letters threatening law suits, called “pre-action protocol letters,” which, no sooner are they issued and sometimes even before they are received, are sent for publication in the media.
The unprecedented occasion giving rise to the need to appoint an entire commission, anew, has itself unfolded remarkably and within a mere week of the announcement of the appointments being made. The appointments themselves were met with widespread acclamation. Without exception, the appointed members have behaved as the exemplars that they are and for which reason they were chosen; they have behaved honourably and the Nation must applaud them. On behalf of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, I extend to them best wishes for continued commitment to the service of Trinidad and Tobago.
Father Henry Charles, Mr Jeffrey McFarlane, Mr Justice Zainool Hosein, Mrs Gladys Gafoor and Mrs Lylla Bada, as President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, I acknowledge you as distinguished men and women who have placed nation before self. In every respect, the selections made were of honourable men and women but, whose selections have been undone by circumstances, some, one may say, of their own making, some not.
Should persons selected have been more forthcoming, more exacting in their self assessment and qualified fitness for purpose? Should the Office of President be endowed with investigatory facilities and resources to better sift the process of those who will guard the guards? Should those consulted themselves have had a more reliable process in place to receive the invitation for consultation and, themselves have been more forthcoming, to enable the consultation to be more meaningful? Did your President err? All of these are legitimate questions which arise to be weighed.
The process of inquiry can feed itself, well meaning and otherwise; the finger-pointing itself can become unending. A deliberative process is not free from the possibility of error and, to err is human. The responsibility is and remains mine and I accept this, unreservedly. The first responsibility to a concerned nation is that of accepting responsibility for such error as has led to this unfortunate imbroglio. As your President, I deeply regret the anxiety experienced by the people of Trinidad and Tobago and the embarrassment occasioned to the appointees. As a nation, Trinidad and Tobago must move on, as it always has and always shall.
The second responsibility is to assure the citizens and residents of this nation that Trinidad and Tobago does not have on its hands a constitutional crisis nor any vacuum in the Office of President, as is being made out. The Constitution and its processes endure and with vested confidence. The process of selection of eligible citizens who are willing to serve continues with the acting President and, in consultation with me. As a nation, Trinidad and Tobago continues to grow, the better indeed for a very healthy national discussion on ethics and integrity. That is as it should be."
- Printer-friendly version
- 1136 reads
Tags
The Response is unacceptable to large numbers of people and the people are entitled to give their opinions.
The occasion arose in February of this year for the appointment of an entirely new membership of commissioners to the Integrity Commission. In every respect that was an unprecedented occasion and one which presented challenges for our young nation.
And bearing in mind that the Commission had been non-functional for some time and there were possible legal manoeuvres looming about that, it was your duty to ensure that the appointments were done properly and to the letter of the law and conventional moral principles.
Notwithstanding the many challenges, on the first day of May 2009, I was well pleased to appoint five distinguished citizens to office.
You were entitled to be pleased if you had full knowledge that these appointments were consistent with the requirements of law and conventional morality. It is now abundantly clear that your being pleased was without such knowledge.
The process by which the members of this commission were and are to be chosen and appointed is one of the few in which, under the Constitution, the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago makes his own deliberate judgment.
However, the President's exercise of that judgement means that he must actually think for himself and know what he is doing - and if he does not have access to sufficient resources, to speak up.
This process carries within it the inherited residue of the former prerogative, which was vested in the Queen. Indeed, it has been said most recently by the Privy Council in the Trinity Cross judgment that the prerogative survives today, albeit in very restricted form and subject ultimately to the modern Republican Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago...
All of that is actually unnecessary waffle.
The Constitution of modern Trinidad and Tobago endows the President with this power of appointment in his own deliberate judgment, as an executive act, subject to susceptibility to human fallibility and supported by the checks and balances of a process of consultation with other important constitutional institutions within our parliamentary and democratic framework.
Subject to human fallibility? No Sir. You may be human with human fallibility, but the exercise of 'the office of President' is not the exercise of your 'person' - understand the difference. You cannot rely on such a lame excuse in the particular circumstances - and that is no different from when a surgeon negligently excises the good kidney or chops off the healthy leg.
The duty to this Nation is so high that such a lame excuse about human error cannot be allowed - not even once. The exercise of the powers of 'the office' means that it is a requirement to ensure that no such human fallibility can expose our democracy to bungling incompetence.
The unprecedented occasion giving rise to the need to appoint an entire commission, anew, has itself unfolded remarkably and within a mere week of the announcement of the appointments being made. The appointments themselves were met with widespread acclamation.
Except that the population doesn't know about any such 'widespread acclamation'.
Without exception, the appointed members have behaved as the exemplars that they are and for which reason they were chosen; they have behaved honourably and the Nation must applaud them. On behalf of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, I extend to them best wishes for continued commitment to the service of Trinidad and Tobago.
Not at all! I shall not be applauding them. They were forced from their positions by a deluge of professional and lay opinion with access to the facts.
In every respect, the selections made were of honourable men and women but, whose selections have been undone by circumstances, some, one may say, of their own making, some not.
Divorced from reality - are the only words that come to mind.
Should persons selected have been more forthcoming, more exacting in their self assessment and qualified fitness for purpose? Should the Office of President be endowed with investigatory facilities and resources to better sift the process of those who will guard the guards? Should those consulted themselves have had a more reliable process in place to receive the invitation for consultation and, themselves have been more forthcoming, to enable the consultation to be more meaningful? Did your President err? All of these are legitimate questions which arise to be weighed.
Actually, this is called an attempt to shift responsibility by posing a bunch of rhetorical questions - that are actually not answered at all by the office of the President.
A deliberative process is not free from the possibility of error and, to err is human.
And now we return to this again human error business again. Clearly there is a lack of appreciation for the difference between the functions of 'office' and the functions of being 'human'. This pleading to 'human error' will not wash - as it will not when a doctor injects the wrong medication, in the wrong dose, in the wrong part of the body and causes serious injury or death. Mr Richards - if you have drafted this response, you have in fact drafted your resignation.
As your President, I deeply regret the anxiety experienced by the people of Trinidad and Tobago and the embarrassment occasioned to the appointees. As a nation, Trinidad and Tobago must move on, as it always has and always shall.
Anxiety? Come nah man - we shouldn't play with words, or has the sentiment amongst the population been entirely missed? The people of T&T have been totally embarrassed and outraged by this recklessly caused rent in their democracy, and their lowered esteem on the world-stage! I feel ashamed for what has happened - and I had nothing to do with the whole matter.
The responsibility is and remains mine and I accept this, unreservedly. The first responsibility to a concerned nation is that of accepting responsibility for such error as has led to this unfortunate imbroglio.
The responsibility was always yours from day one - you and that of your office - so stating the obvious really gets the matter no further forward and does not soften the impact of what has happened. There is a subtle difference between taking responsibility - which we all have to do - and taking blame. Blame is acceptance of fault, negligent act or reckless conduct; as being a direct consequence of misapplication of one's mind to blameworthy situations. Instead the old trick of declaring acceptance of responsibility is pulled out of the deck. This is not a time for card tricks at all, when the democracy of a Nation has been ailing for some time and has been seriously dented by this 'human error' as it is put down to. It should not be left to others to infer - perhaps erroneously - that acceptance of responsibility means acceptance of blame. Now is not the time for semantic games.
The second responsibility is to assure the citizens and residents of this nation that Trinidad and Tobago does not have on its hands a constitutional crisis nor any vacuum in the Office of President, as is being made out.
Assurances must hold substance and weight. There is nothing in the response that carries weight. There is in fact a serious Constitutional Crisis - when the Head of State without reason appears either to breach statute or makes ab initio appointment to a body of Constitutional importance. The crisis is indeed worsened by the response.
The Constitution and its processes endure and with vested confidence.
This statement identifies the distance from reality, and what is happening at a ground level. Constitution and their processes endure even in the political vacuums such as Zimbabwe. Whether there is any confidence in them is a matter for the people - and a world view - that cannot simply be decided on authority, not even the authority or say-so of the President.
The reality is that there has been a growing Constitutional Crisis - a situation that was adequately spelt out by Anand Ramlogan on 2009-03-05. The Nation is now without an adequate Constitutional Compass or one that average people can hold confidence in - a situation which will if not rectified properly and urgently will lead to destruction of our democracy and replacement by a Castro-style dictatorship!
What is clearly missing from this Presidential response is an explanation of how the mind of the President was ultroneously switched from Justice Hosein to McFarlane. Is that forthcoming? I don't expect so.
Mr President, I urge you not to come - unwittingly as it may be - to be perceived as following in the footsteps of failed leaders who impair the progress and growth of democracy by their very presence in positions of power - people who are ignorantly and invincibly obstructive. No - the lifeblood of a Nation is at stake! Rise above yourself - above your individual person.
Having now involved yourself in this faux pas - do you really believe you have the moral authority and the 'legitimacy' required to serve any influence upon your government, in the matters arising from Bakr v Attorney General 2009. I can only pray that you and your advisors see the connection and importance of your faux pas in relation to that matter. The matter of the Integrity Commission has now spiralled outwards to involve the Integrity of the Nation and the Integrity of Democracy itself!