COMMENTARY: Does Jeremie's "friend or foe" exclude PM Manning?

John Jeremie deserves no applause for his performance in the Senate on Wednesday, when he promised to go after white collar criminals and anyone who breaks the law.

It's because his oratory smacks of hypocrisy.

In his quest to hunt down law breakers be they "friend or foe" the Trinidad and Tobago Attorney General promised that he would scrupulously investigate all allegations of wrongdoing.

"There will be no sacred cows, Mr Vice-President. The rule of law demands nothing less," Jeremie assured the Parliament.

And he seemed so deeply concerned that two crime-busting agencies under his jurisdiction have been lethargic in dealing with white collar crime that he pledged to immediately wake them up and get them to work.

Jeremie suggested that some of the nation's white collar criminals are "the very elite in this society" and appealed to citizens - patriots he called them - to show "goodwill and support...And we shall need your prayers."

Yes, he remembered to invoke the almighty. After all, the Manning administration is one of "morality and spirituality". That's why President Robinson gave the nation Patrick Manning as a Christmas present in 2001.

While he was pontificating about his noble intentions, Jeremie was also censuring the Law Association for defending a judge who has asked for an investigation of the nation's highest elected official. Certainly the prime minister cannot and must not be above the law.

It has to do with an affidavit that was rejected by the country's highest courts. But there is one court that still needs closure on that matter and Jeremie, while talking of going after "friend and foe", is shielding his boss from public scrutiny.

Let's forget all the legal semantics and accept that the controversial affidavit is dead. But still, Manning should not be hiding behind some technicality that makes the Abu Bakr Affidavit legally irrelevant.

What he should be doing - and Jeremie should be telling him this, instead of shielding him - is confronting the matter and demonstrating once and for all to the public that Bakr, an insurrectionist, is no friend of his and he doesn't have any deal with him. The nation needs to be sure of that!

We know that both men met during the 2002 general election campaign; what we don't know is what both men discussed behind closed doors. We want to give Manning the benefit of the doubt that Bakr's allegations are baseless.

However, consider some developments that took place and you'll see why Manning owes the country an explanation.

Getting Jeremie to shout down a judge is not good enough.

Consider the following, which have been in the public domain for years:

• Didn't Manning grant the Jamaat al Muslimeen land, then under pressure rescind that decision on the eve of the election?
• Didn't the Jamaat openly campaign for Manning and the PNM?
• Didn't the UNC complain of intimidation of their supporters by Muslimeen operatives during the election campaign?
• Didn't Bakr say at public meetings that he would be the PNM's security minister?
• Didn't Manning meet with gang leaders - or community leaders - and offer to appease them with lucrative government contracts?
• Didn't a judge say the URP was infested with criminals?

The list is long - very long.

Manning needs to explain all this to the people. And Jeremie would do well to end the hypocrisy and finger his boss as well. Anything less would be unacceptable.

Commentary by JYOTI editor: Jai Parasram