At last Thursday’s Post Cabinet Media Briefing, the Prime Minister spoke extensively on the issue of the Emailgate investigation recently reported by the Police to have been concluded.
The Police reported that the DPP had determined that the evidence obtained could not sustain any charges and that the authenticity of the emails could neither be confirmed nor denied. Why? Because steps to have verification were taken too late (9 months after the purported generation of the emails).
The Prime Minister expressed his disappointment with the closure of the matter. “It is too late now to try and find out anything about these emails because we waited too long to confirm and certify”, the PM said. As usual, he found it possible to blame the UNC for the outcome and vowed not to follow the Opposition down their ‘rabbit hole’ of claiming vindication.
There are many rabbit holes in this saga that must be closed.
 
The Emails and Delay in Investigation
After congratulating himself as a champion against wrongdoing, the PM recounted that he received purported emails alleging a conspiracy among Government Ministers including the Prime Minister to undermine the DPP, the Judiciary and even to murder a journalist.
The allegations supposedly evidenced in these documents were serious criminal allegations involving danger to a person’s life.
Yet, this experienced Parliamentarian, receiving 3-month-old emails, took them to the President who passed it to the Integrity Commission for investigation. Then he waited for his referral to cusumay for exactly 6 months.
The delay – Rabbit hole #1.
 
The President and Integrity Commission – Not the Police
What investigative powers do the President and Integrity Commission have?
The President possesses no investigative powers.
The Integrity Commission has limited powers of investigation in relation to Financial Disclosures by specified Public Officeholders (Part III of the Integrity in Public Life Act, Chap. 22:01), breaches of the Code of Conduct (Part IV of the Act) and in relation to a complaint that a person in public life has a) contravened the Act, b) has a conflict of interest based on registered interests or c) committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act” (Part V, section 32 of the Act).
Surely, as a very long-standing Parliamentarian and Minister, the then Opposition Leader must have known that the best place to take such allegations for investigation was neither the President nor the Integrity Commission, but, to the Police. But he chose not to.
This is the same man who as PM never hesitates to remind us that only the Police can investigate and charge anyone for criminal wrongdoing. Surely, this is not something he discovered on entering the PM’s office or residence.
Rabbit Hole #2.
 
What was the Motive?
Of course, the concern to avoid scandal, claimed on Thursday, is obviously questionable, when the then Opposition Leader decided to take the ‘emails’ to “the public, to the Parliament”, yet again not to the Police.
Why was he doing this?
The character of these machinations, openly acknowledged by the current PM on Thursday, point to political chicanery and self-serving political manoeuvre to gain advantage against political adversaries rather ‘reasonable caution’.
Rabbit Hole #3.
 
Filling the Rabbit Holes - Issues for Investigation
 Where did the “emails” come from? Why? What for?
In the last 24 hours I have heard at least 3 suggestions on traditional and social media that the contents of the ‘emails’ which the PM, AG call evidence and a former UNC Minister calls ‘truth’ may have been obtained by and from people ‘within Government’ or ‘the state’s security apparatus’.
This suggests that the contents may have been illegally obtained. In the criminal court, evidence even if illegally obtained may still be admissible.
Did the Police focus their investigation exclusively on trying to prove the validity of the ‘emails’? If there is evidence other than inconclusive ‘emails’, that must be pursued.  
There is need for full and conclusive investigation. That is how the Rabbit Holes – the gaps – can be filled.

What this tells about the nature of Politics and Politicians
Politicians are desperate to get into power or hold on to it. None of them have been vindicated with the closing of the emailgate police investigation.

• Did one side obtain ‘files’ to buss on the other and use it as ammunition in their bid to get them out and replace them?
• Was that ‘ammunition’ illegally obtained or fabricated?
• Did those with the ‘ammunition’ deliberately refuse to take information to the Police for criminal investigation as part of their own conspiracy to bring down a sitting Government?
• Did the alleged conspiracy in the ‘emails’ really exist as the PNM and Volney are suggesting?

We, the People, cannot just say well that’s how politicians are. They are 2 gangs fighting for the turf of being Party-In-Power and we should leave it alone.
We must demand full disclosure and exposure of the TRUTH regarding this most heinous affair in governance in Commonwealth governance both sides claim.  
It cannot be left to the PNM and UNC to try and make self-serving political mileage from it.
It must not just be allowed to go away. It must be fully investigated and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal
 
July 21, 2019

On Friday, 7 June, Government introduced another Miscellaneous Provisions Bill in the House for debate on Monday 10.
This Bill seeks to amend 8 different pieces of legislation, half of which concern the Pensions of officeholders of the State apparatus, MPs, the PM, President and Judges. Three other Acts to be amended to increase the authorities of Ministers in relation to the NIB, Central Bank and Non-Profit Organisations.
The first amendment is to facilitate the latest tax amnesty proposed for the next quarter beginning the 15th of this month. The aim of the amnesty is to bolster tax collections beyond September.
This last aspect is placed first in the Bill affecting 7 pieces of Revenue laws. It gives the appearance that this Bill is something simple and beneficial. However, a more careful examination of the contents of this Bill reveal a number of features that are dubious indeed.
Tax Ammesty
In the mid-year Budget Review, the Finance Minister announced $370M increase in Expenditure and also in an attempt to improve tax collection to bolster Government Revenue, he also announced a 3-month tax amnesty.
This is the latest in a series of tax amnesties under recent administrations all aimed at increasing tax collections in the short and medium terms and in anticipation of introducing a Revenue Authority “with a clean slate” to replace the BIR.
“Tax­pay­ers are urged to take ad­van­tage of this amnesty, file their out­stand­ing re­turns and pay their back tax­es, be­cause once the new Rev­enue Au­thor­i­ty comes on stream, fu­ture amnesties are un­like­ly.”, Minister warned.
Clause 2 of the Bill is to facilitate this amnesty from penalties for late payment taxes and filing Tax Returns and other documents by September 15.
Officeholders’ Pensions
Three clauses of the Bill are to “streamline” the basis of pensions of the President, PM, Parliamentarians, Ministers and Judges.
What ‘streamlining’ means is increasing pensions under relevant laws by adding personal and housing allowances as part of ‘basic salary’ so that the salaries used to calculate pensions and resulting pensions are increased.
Secondly, the Bill also introduces automatic increases in pensions for these officeholders every 5 years after retirement based on revised salaries payable to those still in office. This is in effect an automatic rolling increase in pensions. This is a form of ‘indexation’ – pension increases that do not have to be approved by the Salaries Review Commission or any other negotiated or legislated mechanism.
What is ironic is that every Government since the 1980’s have refused to implement indexation of Public Service Officers’ pensions using increases in the Cost of Living Index the basis of automatic pension increases.
Freedom of Information Restriction
Clause 7 of the Bill amends the Freedom of Information Act by introducing further stumbling blocks for citizens seeking to exercise their Right to access official documents of Public Authorities.
The amendment seeks to do two things;

1. By increasing the period for a public authority to decide on any FOI request from 30 days (1 month) to 90 days (3 months) or a maximum of 180 days or 6 months.
2. All Public Authorities must have the approval of the Attorney General and the AG’s approval can take up to 90 days (3 months) extending the response time to applications for up to 180 days.

These changes will both have the effect of delaying provision of public documents to citizens by a minimum of and additional 60 days or 2 months where the request is approved by the Authority or up to an additional 150 days or 5 months where the AG directs the Authority to provide the document requested.
This further restriction on the Right of Citizens to public information arose out of the recent decision of the Privy Council to overrule the local Courts refusal of leave to apply for Judicial Review of a decision by Petrotrin to refuse a request for documents related to the Malcolm Jones case.
The Attorney General is now being given additional power to direct Ministries, State Agencies and State-owned Corporations on responding to FOI requests from the public.  
National Insurance Exemption
While s. 29 of the National Insurance Act, requires every employed person or unpaid apprentice is required to register for NIS purposes, Clause 8  of the Bill seeks expand the categories of persons in ‘uninsurable employment’, the NIS-exempted employees.
The power to specify additional categories of persons is to be given to the President by Order.
What must be understood is that this really means expanding the powers of the Cabinet as President in Law means the Cabinet in this case since the President will not be acting in his/her own deliberate decision.
This opens a further opportunity for the political electorate to manipulate the NIS system on arbitrary basis.
Increasing the Powers of the Finance Minister
Central Bank HR Information
Clause 7 of the Bill is aimed at increasing the powers of the Finance Minister to demand Human Resource information from the Central Bank concerning organisation and employment matters of the Bank’s staff.
This information will be required to supply such information even based on retroactive requests of the Minister.
While this information, on the face of it, may appear reasonable as the Finance Minister can say that he needs to know the cost of running the Central Bank, though it is an independent institution.
The irony is that Central Bank employees are deprived of the Right to union organisation and representation and the same HR information will remain secret from any representative seeking the interests of the workers.
Non-Profit Organisations
Only a little over a month ago, the Parliament passed the Non-Profit Organisations Act which requires the registration of every single non-profit organisation in the country to be registered and regulated to varying degrees.
The Parliament limited to a maximum of 12 months the Minister’s authority to extend the time for already-existing organisations, other than non-profit companies, could operate prior to registration.
Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to expand the powers of the Minister to grant such extensions without limit.
Essence of Bill 17
This piece of legislation in its content represents directions that are being imposed on our governance generally and are part of the overall anti-social offensive that is being pursued by the ruling elements in our society.
The expansion of privilege, whether in the form of financial rewards or benefits or of further power and authority as well as concentration of power in the centralised Cabinet and its Ministers is one aspect.
The whittling away of the rights of the people by various restrictions or consolidation of deprivation and keeping people disempowered in relation to the public authorities.
The façade of benefit in legislation serving the aims of the state and ruling financial oligarchy as exemplified by the carrot of the amnesty to achieve more taxation in the future.
All of this points to the nature of the governance system which is built on a power to deprive the majority of rights and decision-making power which entrenching the power and privilege of the minority and those who safeguard the status quo.
This Bill, though not to the same degree, is reminiscent of the Public Order Bill which itself was a response to developments in the society but in a direction of curtailing Rights and facilitating the continued enrichment of the privileged.
The rush to debate this Bill also conjures up memories of the ISA which was passed and proclaimed within 2 days.
The expansion of Ministerial authority and Cabinet power as well as the curtailment of public right to public information all resemble the essential nature of both those pieces of legislation, all coincidentally piloted by the PNM.
This Bill, its anti-democratic and anti-people essence must be rejected.
It constitutes another advance of an agenda which seeks to impose a “solution” to the chronic crisis of our society with its deep challenges in the spheres of social, political and economic moribund dysfunction.
To the curtailment of our Right to Public Information – Just Say NO!
To the imposition of the power of the AG on Public Authorities – Just Say NO!
To the expansion of the Authority of the Minister of Finance – Just Say NO!
To the expansion of Cabinet Authority in NIS – Just Say NO!
To the further Expansion of the Privileges of Officeholders – Just Say NO!
To the Expanding Power to Deprive Our Rights – Just Say NO!
To Bill 17 of 2019 – Just Say NO!
 
Clyde Weathehead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal and the
Rights of Citizens Against
Power and Privilege
9 June 2019

READ THE BILL - http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2019h17.pdf

There is a kind of surrealism surrounding the issue of the influx of Venezuelans into this country.
Recent headlines repeating Government statements on the issue reveal how wide off the mark these statements in relation to what is really needed if this country is to help Venezuela in overcoming its present difficulties.
PM: TT not the solution for millions of Venezuelan migrants one headline read. Another, TT to Maduro: Handle your borders.
While the PM said “…TT can only provide limited help”. His National Security Minister called on “…the Venezuelan authorities to step up their border patrols to try to stem the influx of migrants to TT”.
Is this the same Minister who only recently claimed that the TT ‘security forces’ were turning back boatloads of illegal Venezuelan migrants in the maritime domain and TT’s borders were being secured?
What is the Issue
Not so long ago there was a debate about whether there was a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.
The TT Government correctly, in my estimation, focused on the political problems and the need for its resolution by the Venezuelans themselves and convinced its CARICOM colleagues of the value of its position to the point of the regional grouping adopting that position as its own.
At the heart of the problem in Venezuela is the pressure being applied by the US and its meddling in the affairs of that country aiming to impose a governance system and regime favourable to US interests and hemispheric and global objectives.
The campaign to deprive the people of Venezuela their Right to a political system of their own choice and to impose regime change is not new or recent. It dates back to the initial victory of Chavez at the polls and the coup attempts to depose him.
The imposition of 5 years of embargo and sanctions against individuals and more recently against state-owned oil company, PDVSA, have the effect of confiscating resources vital to the economy of Venezuela and the needs of its people.
Such actions are contrary to international law which applies to the relations between and among states. They, as well as those, applied by European allies of the US have no legitimacy in any resolution or decision-of the United Nations.
If anything, any claim to legality of these hostile acts can only made in the sphere of US outlook and the unilateral actions of its President and Congress.
No country can claim there is a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and its only measure is to deprive that country of its own financial resources and organise provocations on its borders and support open attempts at fomenting military coup d’état.
These hostile actions of the US and its allies only serve to deepen the political crisis in Venezuela and deprive the Venezuelan people of a peaceful resolution to political issues.
These aggressive acts also only make matters worse by depriving the country of material, etc needed to meet the basic needs of the people.
No country can claim humanitarian concern for the Venezuelan people and engage in such hostility against that country, all to serve its own ends.
Real Help that TT Can Offer
If the PM is serious about assisting the people of Venezuela, he must use all opportunities and all assets available to push for a solution to the real sources of the crisis and for immediate relief for the people
Accepting refugees or not is not about solving the problems in Venezuela. Nor is registering Venezuelan migrants in TT and offering temporary possibilities of work by Government or charitable donations by citizens going to bring about a lasting solution.
Loss of human capacity through forced migration has not solved any problem in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Nigeria, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen or anywhere else. That loss of human capacity only negatively impacts the possibility of any society to develop further. 
The PM must use his own voice and that of this nation’s representatives at regional, hemispheric and global fora to denounce the anti-humanitarian and illegal acts of the US  and demand an end to sanctions and embargo to assist Venezuela in providing for its people and solving its problems.
Accepting USAID money to assist refugees while remaining silent about the confiscation of the proceeds of the sale of oil and denial of access to Venezuela’s wealth by the Anglo-American Powers will not, in the final analysis, really help the Venezuelan people.
Non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states must not only be said. Upholding such principles of enlightened international relations also requires action to stop violations of the said principles by others.
Real help for Venezuela cannot be provided by inaction based on those principles with excuses such as “...we have a responsibility to protect the interest of the people of TT first and foremost”.
Trinidad and Tobago, as a small nation, cannot accommodate and provide for the needs of a significant displaced population of Venezuelan people. But, our capacity to assist Venezuela and its people on a global scale, lies in adherence to and advocacy for all states to halt the hostile acts against that country and meddling in its internal affairs.
Internationalism involves fighting for the rights of one’s own country and standing in the defence of the rights of others.
Size is not an impediment to such action.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
The Rights of Our and All
Nations and for Peaceful Resolution
of Conflicts Everywhere
27 May 2019