INEVITABLY, last Monday’s presentation by Finance Minister Larry Howai’s  2013 Budget has changed—at least for a while—the confrontational political mood in Trinidad and Tobago over  Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act of 2011.

At the time of writing, the immediate responses from significant sectors of the society—other than the main political opposition People’s National Movement—were quite positive. These included the Trinidad and Tobago Manufacturers Association and the American Association of Industry and Commerce.
Located in the ‘Howai Budget’ are measures designed to reduce the cost-of-living burden, a problem for all CARICOM states; diversify the economy away from a heavy dependence on the predominant and quite rewarding energy sector; as well as proposals for creating thousands of new jobs.
The country’s labour movement, with its known militant profile, may perhaps offer a response later this week. But Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, ever-ready to score points against the People’s Partnership administration of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has already fired his salvos, declaring, for instance, that “the government has been dishonest in treating with our circumstance.”
Surprisingly, Rowley turned down a requested interview with the Express for a response on the budget. The surprise is that, like other leading local media, the Express has been providing him timely and quality coverage in relation to his interventions on matters pertaining to the Justice Administration Act of 2011.
But then politicians can be quite unpredictable in their attitudes towards the media—whether it is here or in other CARICOM countries; the USA, Britain, or elsewhere.
Just recently, for instance, cabinet ministers and leading representatives of the United National Congress (primary partner of the PPG), among them National Security Minister Jack Warner, became so emotionally exercised over media coverage by some well known local journalists, that they chose to indulge in unwarranted name-calling and derogatory references in a televised programme.
Interestingly, some of those government/UNC big wigs were, like the PNM’s Rowley, also given much coverage at the height of the recent controversies pertaining to the framing, changes, repeal and proclamation of Section 34 of the Justice Administration Act.
Media and Rowley
For their part, media colleagues would be well advised against becoming emotionally involved and avoid adopting a martyr complex—however fleeting—as they strive to adhere to the fundamental concepts and ethical practices of the journalism profession.
From my own distance, I know that both Rowley and Warner—like other local politicians frequently in the news—cannot afford to ignore the media for any length of time, if at all.
Soon, the parliament will be debating Mr Rowley’s much publicized “censure motion” against Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, whom he wants the Prime Minister to dismiss from her Cabinet over the inclusion of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice Act.
As far as the people of Trinidad and Tobago, irrespective of ethnicities and political affiliations or persuasions, are concerned, there seems plenty of blame-sharing to go around when it comes to that Administration of Justice Act, including the inclusion and subsequent repeal of Section 34.
In this context, if I may borrow a line from the Guyana-born internationally-renowned poet Martin Carter, “all are involved…”  But, in this instance, all may not be “consumed”.
Opposition Leader Rowley is doing quite well in making politics over what transpired for the repeal of Section 34 of that legislation. But the bitter truth, as his most faithful adherents would know, the PNM bossman was not asleep when the House of Representatives passed that piece of legislation. He was among all the parliamentarians who had voted for it, caveats apart, like time-frame for proclamation.
The Senate subsequently did likewise with a unanimous endorsement, while President Timothy Hamel-Smith, a respected member of the legal profession, presiding, and without any reported interventions to alert of likely negative repercussions.
“Hindsight” pain
Not surprisingly, therefore, following his weekend offering of a “hindsight” apologia, the Barbados ‘Daily Nation’ editorially addressed what it titled “Trinidad’s politics of hindsight:” in discussing the Justice Administration Act and Hamel-Smith’s “hindsight” statement while, incidentally, acting as president of the nation.
“Hindsight”, declared the Nation’s editorial, “has often been summoned to the rescue of more than a few, in all professions, not the least by those in politics, when embarrassment shows up in public and cannot be avoided….”
In noting that the Senate President had deemed the Administration of Justice Act “not only flawed” but that it was “wrong” for such legislation to have been approved in the first place, the ‘Nation” remarked: “Score one for Hamel-Smith in summoning ‘hindsight’ to ease his own  agony over  presiding at the Senate’s passage of that legislation…:”
Well, we already know that Herbert Volney was comparatively swiftly dismissed as Minister of Justice and subsequently screamed that he was “the sacrificial lamb”.
Given, however, all the political manoeuvrings, and debates, in both Houses of Parliament, does Mr Rowley really expect to score political mileage for himself and party with his coming censure motion against Mr Ramlogan as Attorney General?
The Opposition Leader would know that the Prime Minister will not genuflect to such a political ploy. Yet, we must wait to learn how convincingly her Attorney General intends to bare the facts to exonerate himself from blame-sharing, when there is so much to share all around on this very important piece of legislation.
The issue could well surface during the coming debate on the 2013 budget, prior to Rowley’s declared “censure motion” against Ramlogan.  Be on alert, therefore, for plenty par
ty politicking before Parliament’s coming Christmas recess in T&T.