Never a dull moment, some people say.
Well, it seems that even applies to the branded serenity of Tobago’s governance, particularly since the elections to the PNM’s Tobago Council and particularly its Political Leader.
The defeat of the incumbent Political Leader of the party Council and coincidentally Chief Secretary of the THA created a conundrum (oh boy that word again) for the higher-ups of the party.
Should a Chief Secretary, elected by the electors of Tobago, remain as Chief Secretary although removed as island Political Leader by the party members?
The situation was compounded by the fact that the new Leader was not even part of the THA and consequently could not replace the defeated Leader in his other capacity as Chief Secretary, not being an Assemblyman.
The easy solution would have been to allow the defeated Leader to complete his term as Chief Secretary and the next THA elections due in a matter of months.
The eventual party formula - defeated Leader was made to resign his office as Chief Secretary and the new Leader appointed a Councillor in the THA, and, some other Assemblyman be made new Chief Secretary.
The difficulty was - how is this party decision to solve a party problem to be implemented in an official representative body of the People governed not by party constitution, but, by the THA Act.
Installing the new Leader as a Councillor (one being removed to allow that) and a Secretary on the Executive Council was easily done; both positions being appointed positions.
Replacing a resigned Chief Secretary proved not so simple and has become the source of disquiet that involves matters arising from the provisions of the THA Act  which do not easily fit into the internal party ‘solution’ to its internal issues.
Importantly, Part III of the Act, recognises that the Chief Secretary can be removed from office by a no-confidence resolution of the Assemblymen (s.35). The optics of that route would have been a politically untidy situation for the party. So, the resignation was the preferred route.
On April 30, the date of his resignation, the office of Chief Secretary became vacant, but he remained an Assemblyman, a situation not fully contemplated by the makers of the Act which at s.36 ceasing to be an Assemblyman renders his office vacant.
In such a case, a by-election to replace the defeated Leader as an Assemblyman would be the next step. But, the optics and risks of that option also did not find favour with the party hierarchy as a resolution of the party conundrum.
From May 1, the difficulties of the decided party manoeuvre began to be obvious. The new Leader declared that the resigned Chief Secretary automatically ceased to be a Secretary (and member of the Executive Council).  This misinterpretation of the Act immediately incurred the displeasure of Tobagonians, regardless of party affiliation.
The mechanics of imposing an internal party decision on an elected governance body became more entangled. The very process of electing a replacement Chief Secretary was questioned. Subsequently, the legitimacy of the swearing in process and consequent status of all Secretaries raised new questions and challenges, even threats of legal action (since abandoned for other forms of action).
The Minority in the Assembly is challenging the legitimacy of the replacement process and whether the whole party manoeuvre undermines the representative status of the THA itself and democratic principles.
A former Chief Secretary is arguing that upon the swearing in of the new Chief Secretary by the Presiding Officer, the tenure of ALL Secretaries immediately ended until new or renewed appointments by the new Chief Secretary, This would render any decisions/actions taken by any Secretary between the election of the Chief Secretary (May 6) and installation of his new appointees null and void since they would not have been properly in office.
If (as some suggest) the Chief Secretary was only properly sworn in by the President (May 12), the question as to whether Secretaries properly held office would only be affected in terms of for how long
All this disquiet on the serene isle arose from internal party politics being imposed on the elected representative body. The Minority Leader has properly identified this unhealthy development for the democracy and governance of Tobago.
Internal party elections and affairs must never dictate the workings of governance institutions elected by the People.
The line between the party’s affairs and the People’s affairs has been perilously blurred by the underlying notions of party politics trumping representative institution.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal
15 May 2020

“Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot.
Take thou what course thou wilt!”

• Julius Caesar, act 3 scene 2

In the tale as told by the Bard of Avon, following the Caesar’s assassination, Mark Antony, addressing aggrieved plebeians (ordinary citizens) uttered the words quoted above. Put in modern language, it reads: Now, let it work. Trouble, you have begun—take whatever course you choose! Having let the genie or monster out of the bottle, let it take its own course.
So, unfolding before our very eyes is a situation in which we may well all declare, mischief thou art afoot.
An apparently simple and innocuous matter of a visit of a senior government official and her delegation to meet with our PM and his delegation (the regular stuff of international diplomacy) is being turned into a tragi-comedy worthy of Shakespeare’s theatrical imagination.
This visit involved the approved opening of our borders to facilitate, borders on either side were closed as part of anti-pandemic measures.
Also, uncommon, the visiting senior official had only been recently subject of imposed sanctions by more than one major power.
Further inimitable features have been provided by those who seem incapable of telling a simple straight story about this fateful visit.
The PM and his trusty ‘Gary Sobers’ – Minister in the OPM, NatSec Minister, expert and spokesman on energy matters, former party PRO, and more - have managed to tell a story of this visit which has invited curious investigations and questioning of their veracity.
Here are some examples,
The PM suggested that

1. he received and met with a delegation but did not know who the 5 men who were part of it were because they were ‘not introduced’.
2. The meeting was about COVID-19 pandemic response but not one single health official on either side was present
3. He was unaware of the details of the aircraft that the visitors arrived on.

The NatSec Minister added that:

1. While he approved the opening of the borders to facilitate the visit, he knew nothing about who made up the delegation nor about the aircraft conveying them into a secure space
2. There was no question as to what the VP wanted to discuss
3. He asked for the visit to be delayed for 11 days because the VP had a flu.
4. The meeting was of 3 on the TT side and 2 on the visiting delegation – the VP of that country and a Mr. Chavez; the other men were conducted to a “housing bay”
5. The meeting was conducted with participants in “PPE gear”.

The simple contradiction between these 2 versions about who actually met with whom as delegations is just the beginning. If the Minister is correct, the PM met 2 people but was not introduced to Mr. Chavez (sic).
Several issues arise on the Min, Nitec’s account:
Did not know who was coming and on what aircraft – However, flight manifest and other official documents (yet uncontroverted) show the details about both the plane and passengers were official information before the visit date (March 27). Wouldn’t that be all regular?
There was no questioning or discussion about the agenda of the meeting – Yet the PM said that the meeting was to discuss COVID and the Minister agrees. Otherwise, was this a friendly chat that required breach of our pandemic defences?
The NatSec Minister requested delay for 11 days. But we are told that all decisions by the same Minister about treatment of  permitted persons are based on the ‘advice of the science and health professionals’. The quarantine period protocol is the 14-day incubation period. How did this Minister apparently unilaterally vary that to 11 days for someone with symptoms and visiting our Head of Government?
I have not referred to any ‘gasoline deal’ or any kowtowing by the Opposition to Uncle Sam to avoid comingling and confusing the issues.
Why is it on the simple matter of an official visit by a neighbouring diplomatic delegation are we being presented with so much chicanery and obfuscation?
I plead again (at the risk of fuelling the ire of the Facebook trolls) for STRAIGHT ANSWERS from our Elected Representatives because of their DUTY of ACCOUNTABILITY to the PUBLIC.
All this ‘mischief’ taking its course is absolutely unnecessary.
If we are not considered worthy of simple accountability as the People of this country, perhaps our elected officials would prefer to account to those who have openly accused them of violating the OAS Treaty.

Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Demanding Accountability
13 May 2020

Today, we have awakened to the latest salvos of continuing squabble between the contending factions of the PNM-UNC political monopoly, both seeking the approval of the parasitic oligarchy to appointed gatekeeper in office.
Sometime in the late hours of last night, the Leader of the PNM and PM issued an online missive responding to the Leader of the UNC and OL’s as a “rant” that is “not new”.
The Opposition Leader and her Oropouche MP have recently been making overtures to and lobbying the Trump ‘America First’ administration via its Ambassador to this country to consider imposing illegal economic sanctions against the Government or Trinidad and Tobago, based on an allegation of this Government ‘rendering assistance to the Maduro Regime ‘branded as undemocratic, unconstitutional and illegal” by the very Trump administration and “allies of good conscience”.
MP Moonilal in his letter to the Ambassador went further to complain to this foreign diplomat about the failure of the House Speaker to permit his motion for urgent debate on what is the source of the UNC’s latest plea to Washington.
What could be the motive of a sitting member of Parliament in complaining to a representative of an aggressive world superpower?
THE UNC'S CLAIM
The UNC’s claim is that, based on a media story (extensively quoted by Moonilal to the US Ambassador) a Venezuelan fuel trading company supplied 150,000 barrels of gasoline to that country which is suffering fuel shortages because of  “U.S. sanctions aimed at ousting socialist President Nicholas Maduro…” (quote in the MP’s letter). That gasoline they suggest was supplied by Paria Fuel Company.
Should this gasoline have been sold by Paria, the UNC suggests is “an affront to the community of free nations and further posed a risk that Trinidad and Tobago could be met with economic sanctions” (the Moonilal letter).
This is the language which would have been described in an earlier time as that of a complete lackey of a big power Might-is-Right bully.
Earlier, UNC has hoped that by ‘recognising’ Guaido (without any such official authority) they would have curried favour with the Trump administration.
THE OTHER SIDE'S RESPONSE
The PNM, for its part claims that the whole story of Paria Fuel supplying the gasoline is nothing but a UNC “self-serving untruth” (the PM’s late-night response).
The evidence offered:

• The PM answered a UNC question in Parliament and “...denied any knowledge of (Paria) making any sales to Venezuela”. 
• The Energy Minister joined in with “... we sold fuel to Aruba and cannot be held responsible for the end user of that product”
• Paria’s Chairman and the Minister explained the transaction with a Swiss trading company for an Aruba destination.

Perhaps, the PM feels that with the right amount of anti-UNC rhetoric “these responses are clear and truthful denials.”.
This sounds like the inventor of the nuclear bomb declaring whatever atrocity it is used for; I am not responsible.
More, this saga includes the visit of the Venezuelan Vice-President to our PM the day before the fuel transaction was contracted with Paria. The only account given of that visit so far is that it had to do with COVID19.
That lack of openness of the PM with the People of this country is not acceptable. Neither is the excuse that ‘we just selling gas, whatever the buyer does with it after we deliver it is not our business’.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE
Ours is a sovereign country and whether we assist a neighbouring country facing ‘its worst fuel shortages in decades’ according to Moonilal’s letter or not, should be for us to decide and no one else.
Venezuela is also a sovereign country and who the President or Government of that country is and whatever social system it chooses is for the People of that country and no one else to decide.
The US as a hegemonic superpower has not Right or Authority to decide who should or should not lead any other country. Neither, the US President by Executive Order nor its Congress, have any legitimate right or power to unilaterally impose sanctions against any country, Government or individual without due process under international law. The UNC Leader as PM denounced the Executive Orders against Venezuela.
The UNC fawning at the feet of the US or clutching on to its coattails in its fight with the PNM for the favour of the foreign and local 1%, cannot sacrifice the sovereignty of our country.
Nor can the PNM refuse to account fully to the People of this country for its actions, whether well-intentioned or otherwise. To claim, whatever happens to what we sell does not matter is just not good enough. Such excuses may satisfy supporters who refuse to question, but not a sovereign People.
If the US takes up the invitation of the UNC or decides for its own reasons, act to the detriment of our country, it is We, the People, who will be the victims.
By inviting or raising excuses hoping to avoid such actions, neither side of the feuding political monopoly is speaking or acting in our name.

Clyde Weatherhead
 A Citizen Demanding Recognition
of the Sovereignty of the People.
02 May 2020