Noble: Truth, HCU and Karen Nunez-Tesheira—the lady doth protest too much

“What is truth?” retorted Pilate at Jesus’ trial (Luke 18:36). The Greek word for truth is aletheia, which literally means unconcealed and implies sincerity and factuality couched in reality.

Mrs Karen Nunez-Tesheira submitted that my column on campaign financing was based on innuendo.

Nunez-Tesheira indicated I painted “Johnny O’Halloran, presumably in a poor light” and extended that to her. The plain words of my article did not. The presumption is hers.

My column said: “From Johnny O’Halloran to the current matters in the High Court, politicians on both sides colluded with corporations to leverage personal interests at the country’s expense.”

In my column, I clearly stated her account of the event.

“[…] She insists that she did not help and that the campaign support did not necessarily require a payback…”

A Jamaican-born sociologist, Stuart Hall, explains how audiences receive messages (1973). He explained that the message is interpreted according to the recipient’s knowledge and biases.

As a politician, she would have had an encoded view of Johnny O and did not wish to be seen in that light. She is what Hall would have called an oppositional reader, who has no acceptance of the message sent.

Other readers may share that view about my writings on any given topic. Others may accept my view. They are called dominant readers.

The column’s theme was that the Elites’ money and behaviour influence the outcome of elections, setting the agenda that affects the lives of The Unfortunates.

The column’s thesis was that our present crime situation is linked to the focus of these interactions.

Here is an Express news story on the events of the Colman Commission worthy of consideration:

“[…] The Hindu Credit Union (HCU) financed Karen Nunez-Tesheira’s successful campaign to become the Member of Parliament for D’Abadie/O’Meara in the 2007 general election.

“However, Nunez-Tesheira was not the only People’s National Movement (PNM) candidate who secured campaign financing from the HCU during that election.

“The Government absolutely wanted to help the HCU; there is no question about it…The Prime Minister called me and told me that […] and he did not only call me once, he followed up on the matter, and I know personally that he really wanted us to help the Hindu Credit Union without fear of contradiction…”

Why harass Nunez-Tesheira if the Labour Minister is the line minister?

In the Senate on 26 November 2013 Helen Drayton said: “When some campaign donors give money to political parties, it is seen as an investment, buying access to decision making.”

She added: “…while the politicians see that price as millions of dollars, the real cost is citizens’ confidence and trust…It’s not campaign spending that reduces public trust but the alleged sources of funds and corruption. Transparency is the first hurdle against corruption.”

Why accept Harry Harnarine’s help in the 2007 elections? There had been question marks about his dealings at the HCU.

On 16 June 2002, columnist Raffique Shah sounded a clear alarm, naming Conrad Enill, Lawrence Achong and Patrick Manning as complicit in the HCU’s shaky affairs. He also referenced “a frontal assault (a call for a forensic audit) on the institution by Maha Sabha secretary Sat Maharaj.”

Nunez-Tesheira explained the Government’s 2008 thinking to the Commission. “[…] The Government understood the demographics of the country and did not want it to be said that the PNM was only willing to assist people from Port of Spain.

“The Government was well on the way to helping HCU, but because of Harnarine’s ‘recalcitrant behaviour’ the issue could not be properly addressed…” .

The Colman Report (F200 – 209) accepted the Commissioner of Cooperative Development’s 2007 view of HCU’s rotten state.

F210 noted its 2007 call for a Section 4 inquiry (calling in auditors). It notes (F226) that the HCU had been insolvent (distinct from being in an illiquid state—my clarification) since 2006. Depositors were not being refunded (F228) in December 2007.

F258 details Harnarine’s acceptance of problems since 2004. This acceptance triggered Nunez-Tesheira’s 2008 appointment of auditors. F266 calls the Government’s six-month delay in appointing auditors “deplorable”.

Chanka Seeteram, as auditor, got bounced cheques (F221) in 2006 and resigned from the job. The HCU had another auditor before Seeteram. Depositors were not being refunded (F228) in December 2007.

F270 curiously noted: “There were numerous coincidental issues between Mr Harnarine and Ms Tesheira and the MOF as to discussions said by Mr Harnarine to have taken place between them.

“[…] The only material matter of disagreement relates to discussions on 20 June 2008 with regard to an alleged plan for HCU to sell all its assets to GORTT for $300 million.”

F271 describes a disagreement between the then Minister and Harnarine. It went on to note:

“[…] Mr Harnarine, having told her that he had to respect the views of the shareholders, then discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, Mr Manning, who, according to Mr Harnarine’s evidence, did not find the plan for (the) sale of assets and application for a loan unpalatable and said that he would take care of the matter…”

Harnarine’s evidence supports Nunez-Tesheira’s statement about the then Prime Minister’s involvement. The HCU matter was indeed discussed at the top of the Government. Helen Drayton’s comments about paying for access are applicable.

In response to the referenced Express report on the HCU’s elections financing in the 2007 election, Harry Harnarine clarified:

“The funding to the PNM was… $500,000…The HCU provided cash and other resources to the UNC, amounting to $2.5 million…COP was unable to secure HCU campaign financing, however, because it was viewed as a nuisance.”

It may be helpful to remind the readers that in the 2007 elections, Patrick Manning boasted: “We will beat them in the East; flog them in the West.”

In her biography of Manning, Bridget Brereton, emerita professor of History, quoted Raymond Ramcharitar’s observation: “…this campaign was remarkable in the amount of money spent on advertising”. (Brereton, 2024:279).

By 2015, political advertising spending reached $157 million.

This behaviour by the HCU aligns with Selwyn Ryan’s 2002 thesis on campaign financing.

“In election years, major businesses routinely budget and allocate funds to all significant political parties… Much of the giving is also justified as prudential practice. One wants access to whichever party wins.”

Why?

In an uncanny reflection of Nunez-Tesheira’s protest about “clean politicians”, Ryan quoted a Chamber of Commerce president:

“… not everybody who puts money into a party is looking for favours. It’s part of the process. How else will the parties put ads in the papers and get their message across?” (Trinidad Guardian, 7 October 2002).

But the late Professor Dennis Pantin identified: “entrepreneurial politics is an opaque system”. As the Express puts it concerning Jack Warner’s manoeuvrings, the public only knows via “a rare and revealing window”. The Colman Report is another rare window.

Colman praised Nunez-Tesheira “because you alone of all those concerned with the political decision taking have come forward. It is noticeable the remarkable lack of co-operation from others who were responsible for decision taking.”

The Colman Commission’s criticism (F 256) reads: “The Commission records its strong disapproval of the failure of the Ministry of Finance, when confronted with a matter as serious as HCU’s survival, to take any minutes or prepare any other written record of that meeting.”

Who was that meeting’s leader?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. (Hamlet).

Did Nunez-Tesheira ever wonder about “the remarkable lack of co-operation” by her colleagues?

“The wicked run away when no one is chasing them, but the godly are as bold as lions.” (Proverbs 28:1).