I ask this because we have been getting a cacophony of presumed official releases, statements in Parliament, and ministers contradicting themselves and each other, at an alarming rate.
There is, openly in the public domain, an affidavit by a former, albeit unconvicted terrorist, which claims that the Prime Minister made a deal with the terrorist to grant the Muslimeen additional lands at Mucurapo, to withdraw a State claim for damages, and to bring the Muslimeen school at Mucurapo under the Concordat enjoyed by other religious schools with the Ministry of Education.
The affidavit states that the Prime Minister told Abu Bakr to meet the Prime Minister’s wife, education Minister Hazel Manning on the last item. In return the Muslimeen would “help” the PNM win the 2002 general election.
Manning has denied, but not under oath as far as I know, the contents of the affidavit. But what cannot be denied is that Manning did announce, in September 2002 that government was giving more land at Mucurapo to the Muslimeen.
The following day he rescinded the offer, he sitting at a table, with his cabinet colleagues standing behind him—eerily reminiscent of the scene on the night of July 27th 1990, when Bakr was “addressing the nation” he thought he had captured!
Manning not only has to explain to the police where, if at all, Abu Bakr was wrong in his affidavit. He also needs to tell the nation why he rescinded the deal we all saw him announce, and why every one of those cabinet members, save Colm, was subsequently dropped.
And Mrs. Manning needs to tell the nation about her discussions with Abu Bakr. These discussions were about the same time that Manning claims a person went to Hazel’s office and told her of a plot to assassinate the Prime Minister—a minor detail which she did not consider warranted a report to the police.
Was there a connection between Bakr’s visit to Hazel and that alleged threat? How far has the Police Commissioner reached in that investigation?
In short—what are we to believe, given what we know, and what is in the affidavit, which Manning denies?
And while we wait for that issue to unfold, who can tell us why the banks in the Cayman Islands have stated that there is no $40 million account in Sharon Rowley’s name, and yet the Attorney General cannot acknowledge this—in spite of drafting, but apparently not issuing, a press release to this effect.
Who are we to believe?
And the same AG continues to claim that the documents sourced from Malaysia about Calder Hart’s wife’s relationship to directors of the company to whom Hart awarded a $320 Million contract are not yet authenticated.
The police claim they are. Who are we to believe?
And, after the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, the Director of ODPM assured us that his organization is fully prepared to handle a disaster in T&T: they just needed to “fine-tune a few minor details, like an evacuation plan for Port of Spain—in the making since 2005!
But last week we had a complete turnaround—T&T is nowhere ready to cope with a disaster, according to the Director of the ODPM. What are we to believe?
I think we all know the answer to that one. The Ministry of the Environment, headed by the Minister with the capital C, spends thousands of dollars on media advertising proclaiming support for World Forestry Day, World Wetlands Day and World Water Day.
And yet government continues to destroy, under her inscrutable smile, our forests, wetlands and water sources. What are we to believe?
The Arts Community produces a detailed report on issues with the new NAPA building. The Minister of Culture becomes abusive and claims the building is perfect.
Artistes who were asked to provide “overview propaganda” for the building last November are now horrified to see their views being used in spurious advertising to support the Minister’s contentions.
The public is now saying, about this dispute: “Show us! Open the place to a professional (Artistes, Architects, Electrical Engineers etc. ) review so that the truth can be seen.”
Will the Culture Minister allow this?
And finally, in the midst of other unrolling revelations, what exactly did our Prime Minister mean when he said “they (the drug dealers) are not so much against the PNM, you know. They would like to see a PNM government, but they are against the Prime Minister…….”?
What conclusions can we draw? That the drug dealers are happy with PNM Secretary Martin Joseph? I knew that! Or is our Prime Minister going mad?
Peter's columns also appear in NEWSDAY
Peter's columns also appear in NEWSDAY
No comments:
Post a Comment