THERE sometimes is a natural tendency to praise heads of nations when they do something meritorious, and that is how it should be. And that meritorious action also could be the firing of Ministers of their governments. Nevertheless, in all governmental decisions and at all times, we need to understand the holistic dynamics of a decision, which invariably may depict a story that may not accept the merit of a head of state’s decision.

There was the recent case of T&T Prime Minister Kamla-Persad Bissessar’s firing of Minister Pertab, and that of Minister Volney last Thursday. I just want to focus on the latter firing in this week’s Perspectives.

I am aware that some people might say that the T&T Prime Minister stands for no nonsense, and perhaps other heads in the developing world should take note. We must take note of all heads of states’ actions, good or bad, in order to create our own corrective actions and programmes that could withstand any public scrutiny.
Let us review the dynamics of the T&T Prime Minister’s latest firing of a Minister. Proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201 brought the People’s National Movement (PNM) onto the streets; produced the firing of Justice Minister Volney; raised questions on the role of Attorney-General Anand Ramlogan in the matter; and introduced more rhetoric on the principles of individual and collective responsibility.
Proclamation of Section 34 must be something huge to make all these things happen. It stipulates a 10-year statutory limitation, whereby a person could not face prosecution for a crime if 10 years had elapsed from the date of the offence. This stipulation seems quite noble, so what then is the furore all about? The whole issue is about variations of governance.
The proposal to include Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201 did not come before the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) as would normally be the case for proposed legislative matters. The political leader of COP (Congress of the People, a coalition partner of the Government of T&T) and Chairman of the LRC, Prakash Ramadhar admitted that the Section 34 proposal was not presented to the LRC; certainly a slippage in good governance.
Further, last Thursday, the Prime Minister in her speech to the nation said that the Minister of Justice, Volney, provided a Cabinet note of  August 6, 2012; that note stated, according to the Prime Minister,  that the Chief Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions were previously consulted on the proposed implementation of the entire law, including Section 34, on January 1, 2013. Apparently, this turned out to be untrue, another slippage in good governance.
Cabinet proceeded with Section 34 on the basis of the Minister’s word, pushing the matter to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC), and then on to the Office of the President. In all of this, there is the claim that Attorney-General Ramlogan did not engage himself in this matter. The CPC confirmed that conventionally, it  independently interfaces with the Cabinet Secretariat and the Office of the President. That may very well be the conventional wisdom.
Nonetheless, there was a proposal to include a new clause into the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201, a significant judicial law, and clearly, the Attorney- General has to be part of a process aimed at amending the judicial process; a further slippage in good governance. So, let us hold back the fireworks for this latest firing of a T&T Minister.