Denis Homepage
Archive
Trinidad Express
Tobago News
Trinidad Guardian
Soft talk for Ramesh
November 18, 2001
By Denis Solomon
I DON'T know if CCN has decided to use Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj to destroy Basdeo Panday. Destroying Panday is a laudable intention, but not if it involves the rehabilitation of Ramesh, who is infinitely worse. Ramesh has been appearing regularly on the TV6 Morning Edition, and the presenter, Paolo Kernahan, has been letting him give long speeches, and failing to press him with difficult questions.
Last time Ramesh was on, he was allowed to get away with the statement that if the Elections and Boundaries Commission had not told the President that the electoral lists were ready, the President would have delayed the election.
Paolo Kernahan should have immediately challenged this affirmation. The President has shown himself averse to any measure not supported by the strict letter of the Constitution.
• He refused requests for a Commission of Enquiry into the airport contracts;
• He refused to appoint Deborah Moore-Miggins Minority Leader in the Tobago House of Assembly;
• He agreed to appoint seven UNC election losers to the Senate;
• He refused to dismiss Basdeo Panday when Panday lost his majority in the House of Representatives.
In three of these cases the President had some latitude, but refused to use it. In the case of the airport enquiry, the Constitution says one thing, the Commissions of Enquiry Act says another. Moore-Miggins had the support of more THA members than her rival. Section 76 (1) (a) was enough grounds for him to have fired Panday.
But in fixing the election date the President has no latitude at all. Section 69 (1) says that the election shall be held at such time as the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, shall appoint.
Therefore the President could not and would not have delayed the election, whatever the EBC said. Ramesh Maharaj has spent his entire political life bamboozling the public. He should not have been allowed to do it on TV.
Ramesh also made the startling admission that he had removed the Lindquist report from his office when he left it. His motive, he said, was to avoid leaving a sensitive document where it could be seen by anybody. A little knowledge of administrative procedure would have enabled Paolo Kernahan to remind Ramesh that tampering with official papers is a heinous administrative offence, even for a minister. In any administration there is a system for classification of documents. If there is something on a file that you do not want everybody to read, you classify the file as secret and keep it in a safe. You do not extract it from the file and take it home.
I complained to an official of TV6 about the Morning Edition becoming a pulpit for Ramesh. Why, I said, had he not been asked about the several serious criminal charges in his background? I was told that he had been, but had glibly dismissed the charges as the result of PNM harassment.
But what about some follow-up questions? For example: Was he claiming that the police and the DPP were under orders to harass the political enemies of the PNM government? What proof did he have of this? Did the same apply when the UNC was in power? And why should the Government harass him when he wasn't even in politics at the time?
One of the most important questions Ramesh Maharaj should be asked is why he is on TV at all. While he was in office Ramesh enthusiastically seconded the Prime Minister in his attacks on the integrity of the media, particularly CCN, and his attempts to muzzle them. Ramesh was the author of the Green Paper on the media. Furthermore, during his tenure he avoided television like the plague, and could never be persuaded to appear on a programme. So why isn't he asked what lies behind the change of attitude that puts him on screen several times a month?
All TV journalists in this country should be compelled to watch the BBC programme Hardtalk, presented by Tim Sebastian. That might teach them how much homework an interviewer needs to do, and how to skewer an interviewee with tough questions.
A final word about the election date. The President had to set the date chosen by the Prime Minister, whatever the EBC said.
But now that it has been set, he can change it. Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act says that after election writs are issued, the President may by proclamation adjourn the election for a maximum of 30 days, for reasons of (1) war (2) a state of emergency (3) a natural disaster or (4) the likelihood that the revised lists of electors for one or more districts will be incomplete.
The juxtaposition of incomplete electoral lists with war, emergency and natural disaster underlines the importance of fair elections. By the same token, it is foolish to draft a law which says that if the President thinks the lists are incomplete, he cannot ignore the Prime Minister's chosen date, but must first accept it and then amend it by proclamation.
Copyright © 2004 Denis Solomon