Letter to the Editor: It is fake news that AG’s remarks were ominous

“The AG explained that he was adopting that approach in order to advance the work of the Government, given that since the PNM replaced the the UNC in Government, the UNC has been very uncooperative in supporting any legislation which requires a special majority in Parliament—in a concerted attempt to frustrate the work of the Government for political reasons.

“The AG never indicated that he was going to abolish the existing requirement for certain types of legislation which affects people’s fundamental rights, to be passed with a special majority.”

The following Letter to the Editor on recent statements by Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi was submitted by Louis Winston Williams:

If the matter was not so serious, I would be amused by what I heard on television from a political commentator on one of the morning shows, on Wednesday 15 February 2017.

In reference to the Attorney General’s remarks at the conference hosted by the Association of Real Estate Agents (AREA) on the previous day, the political commentator gave me the impression that what the AG said amounted to an attempt to subvert our democracy, the Constitution and the Rule of Law. His view was echoed by UNC spokespersons later on that day.

In a story that appeared in the Trinidad Express on 15 February, Ms Camille Hunte reported that the AG, in commenting on the legislation he intends to bring to Parliament, stated that: ‘Ninety percent of them have been fashioned so that we don’t need to call upon the Opposition for a three-fifths majority…’

However, Ms Hunte also reported that the AG added that the move would not be infringing on any rights.

The AG explained that he was adopting that approach in order to advance the work of the Government, given that since the PNM replaced the the UNC in Government, the UNC has been very uncooperative in supporting any legislation which requires a special majority in Parliament—in a concerted attempt to frustrate the work of the Government for political reasons.

The AG never indicated that he was going to abolish the existing requirement for certain types of legislation which affects people’s fundamental rights, to be passed with a special majority. The AG also did not say that no legislation requiring a special majority will be brought to Parliament.

He referred to: ‘Ninety percent of them…’

The AG’s remarks were pellucidly clear and unambiguous. I dare say that the very negative interpretation given to such innocuous remarks must be seen as contemptuous, very unfortunate and clearly designed to bring the Government, in general, and the AG, in particular, into odium and disrepute.

More from Wired868

Daly Bread: The problem with governments’ management of state boards

Integrity, accountability, financial prudence and consequence management are not simply partisan political issues. They relate to the socio-economic health and Read more

Noble: Beware of frenemies—why Labour should be wary of Gov’t union

It is usual for all attention to be put on Tubal Uriah Butler on Labour Day. This year, however, my Read more

MSJ: T&T Labour movement can breathe after Rowley’s relentless attacks

“[…] The 10 years under the Dr Keith Rowley-led PNM saw a vicious attack on the trade union movement and Read more

Noble: PNM, quo vadis? Anatomy of T&T’s electoral results

“There are two things that are important in politics,” said Mark Hanna, a 19th-century businessman and political kingmaker in Cleveland, Read more

Noble: Trust fund babies chasing the wind—how the PNM still avoids reality

In the run-up to our General Elections, I indicated how the world’s events impact our country and how our method Read more

Daly Bread: Bouncing divided heads—can T&T prevent itself splitting in two?

The level of divisiveness in our small island nation—about which I gave examples in my recent columns—will undoubtedly compound the Read more

Letters to the Editor

Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.