Letter: Rowley must disclose his source

In the malpractice insurance business, there's a principle called 'subrogation', which provides that, for a premium, professionals could hide behind the insurer whenever a claim against them arises. 

In the media business, originators of information can legitimately remain incognito, whether they're paid suppliers or not. However, in the business of parliamentary debates it is forbidden to avoid culpability or accept praise by stifling one's sources of inspiration. 

That's partly because of anti-plagiarism laws and partly because there's an inviolable tenet in lawful societies giving persons against whom allegations have been made the right to challenge whomever is accusing them.

Fundamental to such tenet is that the allegers must be identifiable and identified. In the event where they aren't, the one who first publicly disclosed the allegation must take all the brunt. Dr Keith Rowley made it quite clear he had several conversations with whomever secretly handed him the 'email document' in order to convinced of its bonafides. 

For all intents and purposes, those discussions effectively culminated in Dr Rowley acquiring the document's spurious rights. If not, his actions subsequent to his getting hold of the document confirm his intent to reap its full consequences, for he relied wholly and solely on it to make another futile putsch against a duly-elected government.

Dr Rowley is duty bound to name his source or else be dubbed a joker. This is serious business here! The aftermath of a coup attempt is not a time to roll eyes; it's a time for heads to roll! 

The occasion therefore warrants the government exhibiting its resolve to carry out the mandate given it on May 24th 2010. The joker must be discarded once and for all.

Humphrey Diefenthaller | La Horquette, Diego Martin