It's part of the UNC's continuing series of Monday Night Forum, designed to report directly to the people on party and national affairs. Persad-Bissessar will speak in her dual role as party leader and PM.
There is speculation that the PM will deal with issues raised by former cabinet minister Jack Warner at a meeting in Felicity Sunday. Warner attacked Deputy Political Leader of his party, Dr Suruj Rambachan.
There is speculation that the PM will deal with issues raised by former cabinet minister Jack Warner at a meeting in Felicity Sunday. Warner attacked Deputy Political Leader of his party, Dr Suruj Rambachan.
The Gasparillo meeting starts at 7:00 P.M.
2 comments:
The Prime Minister has dismissed any suggestion by her former minister Jack Warner that she was influenced by certain Cabinet Ministers into accepting his offer of resignation. She went on further to claim that Mr. Warner was contradicting himself by alleging that she was so influenced. Speaking to the media on her return from Canada the Prime Minister is reported as saying that she "acted alone" and was not influenced by anyone into accepting Mr. Warner's resignation. She is quoted as saying, “I saw where Mr Warner is saying that he voluntarily resigned but on the other hand he is saying that some ministers forced me and made me take the decision to accept the resignation. I think that is an oxymoron because you cannot have that. You voluntarily did this and then accuse ministers or persons in some way influencing my mind,”
But the Prime Minister seems to have misunderstood the crux of Mr. Warner's allegation which is not that she was influenced or forced into accepting his resignation. He never said so. What he said was that he had offered his resignation and requested that it take effect from Friday 26th April, 2013 and that she had agreed. He further said that on leaving the meeting he noticed three ministers hanging around, one of whom he described as the chief antagonist towards him (Warner) in the Cabinet, and that it was there and then he feared that his (just concluded) discussions with the Prime Minister would be in vain. It was not long after, he said, that he received a message that the Prime Minister wished to speak with him and that it was in that new conversation that his suspicions were confirmed when she told him that she had "reconsidered" his offer, meaning that she had changed her mind and that she preferred to accept his resignation with immediate effect.
We see nothing contradictory or oxymoronic about Mr. Warner's statements and they stand unanswered in spite of the Prime Minister's response even as we make the point that the Prime Minister is under no obligation to explain or justify her decision as the composition of her Cabinet is entirely within her prerogative and no issue can be taken with her acceptance of Mr. Warner's resignation. But having taken it upon herself to publicly justify/explain her decision in addition to having prematurely stated to the media that she "was stunned by the Sir David Simmons' report" and that on its basis she had "action to take" upon her return home, direct quotes attributed to her in the media, and not yet publicly disavowed, she has opened her decision and actions to public speculation as to why Sir David Simmons' scathing and damning indictment of Mr. Warner was elevated to the status of Biblical, Quranic or Vedic doctrine.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that it was Sir David's report that convinced her that she should accept the resignation of Mr. Warner. After all, Sir David, she says is "a very eminent jurist", implying that his report could be relied upon simply because he is Sir David Simmons, whose own integrity she further implies, is beyond question or reproach, as if he were Saint David and not merely Sir David. She professes further that she cannot understand Mr. Warner's refusal to cooperate with Sir David's investigation, again implying that Mr. Warner's refusal to do so raises questions about his credibility and that of the explanations and documents he subsequently revealed to the public.
Continued below
continued from above
As a brilliant lawyer and eminent senior counsel herself, the Prime Minister must know that Mr. Warner was under no obligation to cooperate with or expose himself to an inquiry that he had no confidence in, that was intended to sink him, having regard to who commissioned it and who was conducting it, and that he might have been so advised by his lawyers. Not only that, but the Prime Minister should know that in today's world, "He who pays the piper calls the tune", and one cannot help but wonder how Sir David Simmons' report would have read had it been Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer who had commissioned and paid for his services.
While the Prime Minister seems to repose absolute confidence in the integrity of the Sir David Simmons report to the extent that she conceded that it was the catalyst for the 'volt face' that saw her reversing her support for Mr. Warner and requesting/accepting his resignation, we at the TnT Monitor have no qualms about questioning Sir David's credibility, having regard to the fact that outside of Trinidad and Tobago, more specifically in his native Barbados and the Turks and Caicos Islands, Sir David Simmons' integrity has been severely criticized and called into question on several occasions by prominent citizens in both territories. Published in the Barbados Free Press and reproduced in our blog these articles paint a completely different picture of how Sir David Simmons is viewed in the land of his birth and are scathingly critical of his sense of integrity.
We choose to say no more at this time about the Sir David Simmons' CONCACAF report. Suffice it to say that pronouncements by someone who is portrayed in his own country as an unscrupulous wheeling and dealing businessman and politician, and whose appointment as his country's Chief Justice was widely viewed in that country as having compromised the integrity and impartiality of that exalted office, should not be taken as Gospel.
Written By:Radar
Post a Comment