For several months now, there has been a steady stream of scoops, exclusives, invectives, innuendo, leaks, conspiracy theories, juicy gossip, allegations, denials, disclaimers, hands-off declarations, juicy photos, exposed documents – all the stuff that a mystery novel or considering the recent Oscars, the stuff that a good who-done-it move might be made of.
Were the possible consequences for individuals, for the state of our justice system or our entire governance; even for the possible bolstering of an already seething anarchy; were all these not so serious for our nation’s present and future, we could revel in the theatre of it all.
But, we have no such luxury.
The fact that engaged in legal battle in our very Courts we have the Bench (the Head of the Judiciary) v the Bar (the Association of the Legal Practitioners); this very fact should alert us of the magnitude of the dangers that abound.
We have been this way before, some will say….Remember Sharma, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the DPP, the President all in that toxic mix brewed in the vapours of the Naraynsigh murder.
We survived that, didn’t we?
Well, this is worse, much worse. Our very judicial system is now on trial.
There is need to cut through all the drama, intrigue, theatre and get to the heart of the matter – the Nana of the business at hand, as a senior colleague at the Bar loved to tell us.
GETTING INTO IT
The day after the High Court Judge ruled in the matter of the Chief Justice v the Law Association, a respected senior engaged me in conversation on the matter.
It started like this:
Senior: Did u read Kangaloo's judgment in the CJ CASE? What do u think?
Me: Haven't been able to read the whole thing yet. I saw LATT's comment.
But my senior was asking what I thought, so I continued:
“I think the problem for LATT is their insistence on calling what they are doing an "investigation". They could have quietly sought information and taken their information to the PM.
“Other than that, this whole thing calls into question the disciplinary power of the JLSC re the CJ as against other Judges. Also, the LATT should demand publicly that the PM investigate the allegations vs the CJ.
“I think he (the CJ) also acted inappropriately when he mobilized a posse of Judges to join him in issuing a statement basically exonerating him and causing division in the Judiciary.
“But, who is me to advise eminent SCs like the ones pronouncing on this issue, etc.?
Senior: “I laugh at the last question. But, on a more serious note, do u not think that the judges who signed that anonymous note ought to declare themselves so that they are not assigned this case?
Me: “What if Kangaloo was one of them? “To say that they were part would indeed be fair and prudent. But all man jack should man up on this. This is potentially the last straw in failed state status. And anarchy shall reign.”
Senior: I have read the judgement. I think the judge may have misunderstood what the LATT is doing or it was not properly explained to her. A good explanation either at the CA or the PC will reverse her decision.”
Me: And what was or is the LATT doing? Conducting a PI? An investigation? Macoing? What?
What's the outcome after having the CJ also a witness in their ‘investigation/inquiry’? Will the investigators then be witnesses before the s 137 tribunal, if the PM asks for one? What is LATTs remit? Is it as self-appointed investigating officer in a disciplinary process?
 Fundamentally I think it goes right back to the basic weaknesses in our Constitution. Too much uncertainty in our highest statute.”
Senior: I think your mention of S.137 in this chat is exactly the mistake that the judge fell into. The LATT has no nexus to S.137. That is a section for the PM to chew on, if he wants to.
Me: True, but, If not to get to the point of a Tribunal. If not so, then what is their investigation for? To make an allegation to the PM?
And in making allegations of wrong doing does anyone need to conduct an enquiry including interviewing the person against whom the allegation is to be made first??
I don't think that applies in any other circumstance. Would I have to conduct an enquiry including a possible interview of the accused before I go to the police with a complaint?
If LATT or I for that matter must conduct an investigation first, what then is the role of the PM in the whole process? Postman?! This sounds a lot like the Rules created by Parliament in LN 218 of 2017 that sought to turn the Police SC into a postman for a private firm in the appointment of the CoP and Deputy.
Where is due process and natural justice if the LATT is to satisfy itself of guilt in order to make a complaint to the PM.
I hold no brief for the CJ, but it seems that the LATT is trying to conduct a trial to determine if a complaint should be made. Not even to lay a charge. That is the PM’s or President's responsibility.
But our again limp Constitution does not lay out the disciplinary process in sufficient detail.
So, the PM, no matter how vigorously you complain, can simply ignore you, even if you conduct a PI or Trial in formulating your complaint.
Fatally, the LATT has repeatedly said that the outcome of whatever it deems what it was doing to be, may be that the CJ may have a question to answer or it may have proven that he has nothing to answer. Is that the role of an interested party to decide in disciplinary proceedings. I THINK NOT!
“And is the PM not to undertake such investigation/enquiry to satisfy himself to invoke a tribunal which shall itself investigate the charges?
Senior: And that is the nana of the matter as our old friend used to say.
Me: Let us see what the CA says.
Senior: Looking forward to that decision.”
And, so it ended. But, the public discourse continued well into the next 24 hours.
To and fro, for and against. But for and against precisely WHAT?
Are we, as a nation, after all the debates, talk show discourses, thinking aloud, etc., Are We, as a nation, getting to the Nana of the Matter?
SOME QUESTIONS TO PONDER
At the risk of boring my audience to sleep or worse, I chose to relate the entire conversation between my senior colleague and myself in the hope of pointing to some core issues.
I put the following as questions to ponder in the ongoing public dissecting of this entire affair:
A. Removal of a Judge:
a. The Reason: s. 137 (1) of the Constitution says that ANY Judge can ONLY be removed from office for  1) inability to perform the functions of his office or for misbehaviour;  
         i. Inability is from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause –
          1. Who is qualified or capable of deciding if a Judge is suffering from a mental or physical condition that makes it impossible to perform his functions?
          2. What is any other cause that can make a Judge incapable of performing his functions?
          3. Who can say what and how that is so and make an allegation?
      4. What constitutes Misbehaviour? What are the infractions? Infractions of What? Of the   Judge’s Code of Ethics, the Law?
b. The Process: According to s.137(3), In the case of all other Judges, the JLSC must seek from the President appointment of a 3-member tribunal of Commonwealth Judges to “enquire into the matter’ and “report the facts” to the President and “recommend” whether the President should further refer the matter to the Privy Council to decide on the removal.
c. The request to the President in the case of any other Judge comes from the JLSC. In the case of the Chief Justice, the request comes from the Prime Minister. Presumably, the JLSC conducts some level of “enquiry” before making such an important request that could lead to the removal of a Judge. What “enquiry” is the PM required to make before making a similar request re. the CJ?
d. Did the PM, in this present case, make any enquiry of the CJ or anyone else? Or, did he just decide, without any enquiry at all, that he would do nothing? Was his Chinese Wall an excuse for not doing any investigation at all, given his very important role in this disciplinary process?
e. Is it proper for the PM to request or not request a tribunal of the President, without himself doing some investigation of the matter to be able to satisfy the President that there is some preliminary level of proof of the CJ’s inability to perform his functions for reasons set out in s. 137(1)?
B. Who Investigates Possible Grounds for Removal?
     a. From the process in s.137 (3) of the Constitution, the Privy Council DECIDES if a Judge is to be removed.
     b. The Tribunal RECOMMENDS the removal of a Judge
     c. The President DECIDES if to set up a tribunal
     d. The JLSC or the PM PROPOSES that the President set up a tribunal.
     e. Given the decision-making points in the process, WHO and ON WHAT BASIS decides to take ANY STEP in this disciplinary process?
     f. Can the JLSC or PM (re CJ) propose to the President without Deciding that there is some basis to establish one or other of the ONLY GROUNDS on which a Judge can be removed from office?
     g. Can the President, if requested, just set up a tribunal WITHOUT being satisfied that there is some prima facie basis to establish one or other of the ONLY GROUNDS for removal of a Judge?
     h. Can a tribunal recommend removal of a Judge without establishing for itself one or other ONLY  GROUND for his/her removal?
     i. Can the Privy Council DECIDE finally on the removal of a Judge without satisfying itself that one   or other ONLY GROUND for removal is properly and conclusively PROVEN?
     j. How is every person or body at different points of this process to investigate and get Facts to make the recommendation or decision they must make?
    k. In the Public Service – Civil, Teaching, Fire, Police, Prisons - when an allegation is made against   an Officer, there MUST be an INVESTIGATION before a disciplinary Charge is laid against him/her. If the President in setting up the tribunal is, in effect, laying the Charge, WHO is investigating the allegation against the Judge before the Charge is Laid? Isn’t that the Responsibility of the JLSC (other Judges) and the PM (CJ)?
     l. Why is s. 137 NOT saying Who is to Investigate before Charge?
C. What is the Role of the LATT?
     a. If there are allegations in the public domain about a Judge, who is to decide if there is validity in them serous enough to recommend disciplinary action against the Judge and the Grounds for such action?
     b. Is that the Role or Duty of ANY citizen?
     c. Is that the Role or Duty of the LATT?
     d. Is that Not the Role and Duty of the PM in the present case and of the JLSC in relation to all other Judges?
    e. Is a “General Meeting of Judges” to "investigate” and announce their “findings” via an anonymous or any other advertisement or media statement?
D. Weakness of the Constitution
     a. Is it a fact that the Constitution in s.137 which is a disciplinary process, not detailed enough in   its content?
     b. If s. 137 Is not detailed enough, are there regulations to be followed by the JLSC, PM, President, Tribunal in carrying out their part in the process?
The stakes in this matter are really high. At risk is the credibility, not merely of the CJ, but of the entire judicial system and the disciplinary process itself.
It is vital, crucial, critical that we, as a nation, get to the heart of the matter – Is there any prima facie case, based on the ONLY Grounds for removal of a Judge as per s. 137(1) of the Constitution?
What are the allegations against the CJ in the public space?
 Did the CJ interfere in the constitutional role of the Police in instructing the Police to cease their protection of Justice Seepersad?
 Did the CJ in a meeting with Judges or otherwise attempt to persuade them to change state-provided security in favour of a private company connected with his personal friend?
 Did the CJ intervene in the HDC allocation of housing on behalf of one or more of his personal friends?
The CJ himself publicly said, in response, that a) he did not encourage Judges to change the arrangements for their personal security and b) he did intervene with the HDC on behalf of others. Did that response by the CJ end the matter?
More questions arise:
 Did the PM not know of all of this which is in the media, in the public domain?
 Did the PM ask the CJ a question like he asked his ‘fiend’ in the fake oil allegations in the public domain?
 Did the PM make any enquiry of the CJ or anyone else regarding these serious allegations?
 Does the “Chinese Wall” the PM suggested in the separation of powers prevent him enquiring? Does that wall now disappear as the PM is enquiring into sabbatical for the same CJ?
There must be some determination of the allegations against the CJ.
We went through the whole process only for the Privy Council to decide there was no reason to remove CJ Sharma from office.
Our Constitution, as much as the CJ or the Judicial system is under the microscope.
Also, if we don’t take the opportunity to recognise its weakness in this aspect AND FIX IT, we, as a nation, would have engaged in an exercise which generates much Heat, but NO Light.
Let’s get to the Nana of the matters at hand.
​
 Clyde Weatherhead
8 March 2018

International Women’s Day 2018:
The Time is Now!
March 8, 2018 is International Women’s Day.
In 1908, woken workers marched through the streets of New York City raising their demands for voting rights, better pay and shorter working hours.
In 1910, Clara Zetkin leader of the women’s office of the German Social-Democratic Party proposed that ever country celebrate International Women’s Day to push for the demands of women.
In 1911, more than one million women, celebrated International Women’s Day on March 19 in several European countries and Australia. Their banner: Forward to Female Suffrage!”.
In 1913, International Women’s Day was moved to March 8, the date was recognized by the United Nations and is celebrated worldwide since 1975.
This year the UN’s Theme for International Women’s Day is The Time is Now: Rural and urban activists transforming women’s lives”. This is a celebration of the rural and urban activists who have transformed the lives of women around the world whether in local grassroots campaigns or global movements for the Rights of Women and a more equal future.
Where are we 110 Years after New York
When the women took to the streets of New York their demands were for:

• The Right to Vote
• Better Pay
• Shorter Working Hours.

Women’s Suffrage
More than a century later, we mark the centenary of Women’s Suffrage in the UK though with property limits, women’s right to vote was introduced in the People’s Representation Act of February 6, 1918.
Today, there are still a few countries in which women still have to demand “universal female suffrage without qualifications” as was raised in 1907 at an International Conference of Socialist Women in 1907.
The Right to Vote and to participate in governance as candidates and representatives is still to be universally achieved.
The Issue of Pay
The demand of women, not just for better, but equal pay with men for the same job is still yet to be achieved in most of the world’s countries.
The World Economic Forum estimated in 2017 it could still take another 100 years before pay inequality disappears. It was analysed that women work “for free” for at least 51 days a year because of the pay gap.
At the start of this year, a new law making it illegal to pay women less than men came into effect.
But too many countries are still lagging and paying women substandard pay and denying pay equality.
Shorter Working Hours
The demand for shorter working hours was taken up by workers, women and men, all over the world and the standard of the 40-hour work week and 8-hour day was won almost everywhere.
There are ongoing battles as employers, including Governments, have been pushing measures to extend working hours using various subterfuges.
In all these 3 demands, in 2018, the Time Is Now for them to be met.
THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY AND AGAINST VIOLENCE
The fight of activists to transform women’s lives has been broader then the initial demands of 1908.
The Fight for Equality and Against Gender-based Violence is an important part of the global movement for women’s rights, equality and justice.
Much has been said about women taking up leadership roles, about ‘breaking the glass ceiling” and the like. However, on a global scale only a relative few countries are led by women. In business, in the US for example, it is estimated that women hold only 14% of executive leadership positions.
In many trade unions, right here in T&T, where the workplaces represented have a majority of women workers, the union leaderships still don’t reflect the membership in the number of women leaders.
The myths about leaders (men) being born and the ‘newness’ of leadership for women are part of the ideological apparatus of women’s oppression and supporting inequality.
Leadership is skill and art. There is no genetic proclivity to either skill or art in my view. So, leadership being natural to either males or females is itself a myth. Things might get more complex but no les mythical if we apply current definitions of "gender" based on sexual orientation or preference. This "more natural leader" fallacy is part of the outlook and argument in support of male chauvinism and oppression of women.
In 2018, the Time Is Now to debunk all this gender stereotyping and stop the denial of leadership roles for women in every aspect of social activity.
Much worse, the cycle of violence against women, of abuse that is violent, criminal, psychological, financial or otherwise continues.
It is only in our murder statistics that women are occupying space resembling parity. This is not an achievement. It is a stain on the quality of our society that we continue, and increasingly so, to unleash the most savage violence against women.
The Time Is Now to step up our activism and put a halt to violence against women and girls.
CELEBRATE, BUT ORGANISE
On this International Women’s Day, while we celebrate women.
We must also Step Up the Fight for equality and justice for women. We must all Press for Progress in giving a guarantee to the Rights of Women – economic, social, political and all other rights.
This is part of the fight to establish a social and political order that guarantees the rights of all.
Just last Sunday, on one radio station, from morning to evening, the talk shows all focused on the reflections of the rapid degeneration in our social order reflected in the violence unleashed against our women and children.
This decay must be stopped and now.
We must all stand up and demand changes in our social order to guarantee the safety and security of every member of society, particularly the most vulnerable.
As one psychologist pointed out on Sunday we can trace the beginnings of the criminal culture and the failure to provide our young people with the support and protection they need in the way things have been done or not done over the last few decades.
At its core, the cause of the social and moral decay, of the continuing inequality and injustice for women is the cause of the general crisis in our society.
It is to be found in the very structure of the economic arrangements and in the governance arrangements including the political and electoral processes which deny the majority of members of our society from any real decision-making power and puts everything in the service of the interest of a small and diminishing minority.
The Time Is Now to get to the root cause of the destruction of our natural and social environments.
Everyone, every member of society, must become real activists for analyzing the situation and making Analysis with Action,
Whether it is empowering our women, in the towns or countryside, giving guarantee to women’s rights, equality and justice, we cannot leave things up to others. We must become activists for the Rights of All and for a Society that Guarantees the Rights of All its Members.
For International Women’s Day 2018 the Time Is Now to Get Up, Stand Up and Get Involved in the Fight for the Future We Desire.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
March 7, 2018

​February 26, 1970, a solidarity march in support of Caribbean students on trial in Canada on charges arising out of protest actions, began in Port of Spain.
For almost 3 months this spark escalated into a raging fire of mass protest across the country which became known as the Black Power Movement or the ’70 Revolution.
While support of the students was the immediate issue, there were deeper concerns which were the real catalyst.
After 8 years of formal Independence, the youth of the country became the spear of a seething discontent. There was widespread disappointment in the promises of Independence.
The biggest signs of the emptiness of the “massah day done” rhetoric were the continued domination of the economy by foreign ownership and the lack of opportunities for vast majority of the successors of the chattel slaves and bound indentures.
Visibly, in the employ of the banks and other institutions, the faces did not reflect or represent the majority of the society.
The outward-and-visible signs of an inward-and-fundamental malaise encourage the perception that the problem was race.
It is recorded that the newspapers of the day dubbed the growing protest movement – Black Power.

February 26 – A Continuation
There was an international context:

• The national liberation movement escalated in Asia, Asia and Latin America
• The Vietnam war was waging
• The civil rights and anti-war movements in the US continued to rage.

It was a time of revolutionary fervor everywhere.
When the solidarity demonstration began outside the Canadian Embassy on South Quay and moved to the Canadian banks and eventually the Catholic Cathedral, this was indeed a continuation, a mushrooming of several seeds planted in the previous year or more.
The bus workers’ strike, the organizing of the youth mostly in the urban communities, the arrest and charging of the students in Canada, the UWI students blockade of the Canadian High Commissioner were all strands of the growing discontent.
The formation of the National Joint Action Committee on February 26, 1969, harnessed them all into a coalition of forces demanding Change.
A united front of workers, farmers, students, youth, women and other collectives of the people was forged.
Their demands were economic, social, cultural and political.
“We do not want the crumbs, we want the whole bread!” was a call for the end of foreign domination and control of the economy and for the wealth generated by the economy to be used to provide for the needs of the population above all.
The most prominent banner “Indians and Africans, Now!” signaled the desire for Unity of the People.  
“Power to the People!” pointed the political demand for decision-making power.
Out of the cathedral protest, nine NJAC members were arrested.
In response, daily demonstrations escalated, the largest of an estimated 50-100,000 marchers on April 6 in the funeral of Basil Davis, a protestor killed by the police. The threat of national strike flowed from a sugar workers’ strike. Protests were held in Tobago and the March to Caroni was also a highpoint.
This movement sustained for almost 2 full months until the arrest of 15 leaders and declaration of a State of Emergency on April 21.
This suppression sparked mutiny in the ranks of the Regiment.

Value of the Revo
Today, some people question the value of the 1970 Revo.
Some are cynical that anything useful has come out of it. Others are skeptical that even if there was advance, that our politics remains stagnated in a pre-70 mold.
This powerful mass movement of 1970 did bring developments in various areas.
Most importantly, it was an awakening for the nation.
No one who lived through those times, remained unaffected. How they were affected and responded to these unprecedented developments depended on their position in the social structure and their involvement in the events.
Large numbers of people began to question the state of things. The necessity for this collective action became so much clearer to growing numbers.
For many, 1970 drew them to commitment to the development of the nation, to the interests of the people and to the cause of progress and political advance for our nation.
The spread of social consciousness was enormous, and its benefit is felt to this day.
1970 also constituted a magnificent cultural renaissance for our nation.
On the economic level, the state’s response was to try and address the face of things with a rash of nationalizations which have expanded the state sector. There were also adjustments in the employment policies of the big finance houses and opportunities did open up in many areas for locals.
Any real redistribution of wealth in favour of those who demanded ‘the whole bread’ has not happened. At best, the quantity of ‘the crumbs’ has increased. The ‘commanding heights of the economy remains out of the hands of the people.
However, what is now popularly referred to as the 1% remains firmly in ownership and control of the economic pie and foreign interests in the major oil and gas sector still dominate.
The political structure has changed very minimally, Republicanism to remove the “queen face” as Head of State notwithstanding. Our governance institutions remain essentially those inherited from the ‘Crown colony Governorship’.
The majority are still not yet in control of our society. The minority continues to rule.
The value of 1970 is that the Necessity For Change which was recognized, whether perceived as to change on the surface or more fundamentally for the reconfiguration of the economic, political and social order, remains a motivating force for those who are committed to the real historic development of our society in the interest of the people.
Despite the setbacks and reversals, today, on a much larger social scale those who refuse to accept the status quo and who question the causes of our condition; who demand solution to the state of our social and natural environments are; who want a new governance with power to the majority and a new political process which gives decision-making power and sovereignty to those who constitute our nation; are active, even if appearing dormant.
The social forces that constituted the coalition within NJAC and in action on the streets are all present, more conscious and need to organize.
The aims of the 1970 Revo remain to be fulfilled and the forces to achieve it are present.
That day of victory will come. The leadership must be constituted.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
26 February 2018