Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
Last Sunday, I asked the question how effective has the expiring State of Emergency been and what next?
At the time of writing this column, the Government was proceeding to have the House of Representatives pass a resolution to extend the State of Emergency for a further period of three months. Only a simple majority in the House of Representatives is required for this particular extension.
Photo: OPM.
The expiring State of Emergency was first declared on 18 July 2025 and was valid for 15 days. It was extended for three months by a resolution passed in the House of Representatives on July 28.
Inevitably we have been bombarded with partisan messages about the “success” of the first period of the State of Emergency and the purpose for which the further extension has now been sought.
At the core of the bombardment are purported inferences from the significantly lower murder rate and other statistics. But examination of the touted success requires time to consider what was said in the House of Representatives on Friday last and to take time to re-examine what was previously said in the House.
(via Skynews.)
This consideration cannot be diverted by the remarks of party zealots. The problem is that party zealots cannot be even passable historians or commentators because their inferences from facts have to be drawn perversely to fit into a partisan message.
That is why some zealots have muddled, perhaps deliberately, how the succession to the office of Chief Justice (CJ) from CJ Satnarine Sharma to CJ Ivor Archie took place, with the recent succession from Chief Justice Archie to Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh.
The simple but significant factual differences between these two most recent successions to the office of CJ are set out below.
(via Newsday.)
CJ Sharma retired as scheduled on the date of his reaching the mandatory retirement age in January 2008, which at that time was 65—subsequently amended to age 70 by Act No 8 of 2020, assented to in March 2020.
With that scheduled event of CJ Sharma’s retirement on the calendar, there was time for the Office of President to have the constitutionally required consultations, without fumbling, to have a successor CJ in place the very next day after CJ Sharma’s retirement.
The recent next day succession from CJ Archie to CJ Boodoosingh plainly did not have its origins in a scheduled departure from office. Archie had recently indicated that he would leave office before his mandatory date but did not disclose a date of leaving.
(via Newsday.)
Suddenly a statement appeared in the public domain on his letterhead dated October 21 that “he had indicated to the Acting President that I will retire on October 22”.
Acknowledging the difficulty raised by the curious path of departure that former CJ Archie took, there was nevertheless no obvious need to rush down a permanent replacement the next day to the detriment of the constitutional requirements for consultation.
Was there a clandestine motive? The most senior sitting judge could have easily been appointed to act in the office of CJ for a week to permit proper consultation in fulfillment of the requirements of the Constitution.
(via Office of the President.)
Why therefore malign those non-aligned commentators who had a problem with the conduct of CJ Archie and Office of the President, who effectively, by incompetence or design, bungled the required consultation?
That is a low dodge—conduct typically the result of fanatical perspectives. Let me repeat that CJ Boodoosingh was widely regarded as a person worthy to hold the office of CJ, an endorsement which I plainly gave in last week’s column.
I would add that in this column I welcomed his elevation to the Court of Appeal in 2020. Prior to that, in 2011, I defended the integrity of his decision in the Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradition cases.
(via Office of the President.)
Moreover, zealots dislike and try to denigrate retrospectives into past circumstances, which demonstrate how little politicians and their satellites learn from past mistakes and how frequently political change is exchange.
The glaring current example of this is the continuing failure, described by many commentators over decades, to deal effectively with our country’s infiltration by the international drug and human trafficking trade—and now controversially relying on a powerful foreign ally to disrupt it for us.
This week, two quotes came to mind as I read the local newspapers. The first was from Benjamin Franklin, who Read more
“[…] For neighbouring countries [of war sites], output falls by 10% on average after five years while inflation rises by Read more
Our honourable Prime Minister, Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar, decided to mount a tiger to get access to the promised riches of Read more
Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh is worthy of holding the office of Chief Justice to which he was appointed on Wednesday Read more
“[…] Yes, the tone of the budget is firm and unapologetic. It calls out past failures and demands accountability. Some Read more
Recently, the Attorney General, Senator John Jeremie SC, announced that the State had decided to discontinue an appeal against a Read more
Martin G Daly SC is a prominent attorney-at-law. He is a former Independent Senator and past president of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago.
He is chairman of the Pat Bishop Foundation and a steelpan music enthusiast.
When the Rebuttal Proves the Point: Daly’s Second Act of Self-Contradiction
By Mohan Ramcharan LLB (Hons), ACILEx, AAPM
Martin Daly’s latest column proves that nostalgia ages badly when coupled with vanity. Having been publicly shown that his “botched process” argument collapsed under constitutional scrutiny, he returns — not with substance, but with a sermon. Now, from the comfort of his armchair pulpit, he declares that “party zealots” are rewriting history. The irony, of course, is that he’s doing exactly that.
Once again, he insists that the appointment of Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh was “rushed,” that it “stinks of mal-intent,” and that unnamed “zealots” have muddled timelines. Yet he still cannot identify a single breached section of the Constitution — not one. Section 102 is clear: the President consults the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, then appoints. It’s not alchemy; it’s administrative procedure. Everything else is ornamental noise dressed up as outrage.
Daly’s latest trick is to compare the 2024 appointment of Boodoosingh CJ with the 2008 transition from Sharma CJ to Archie CJ, as though nostalgia could confer authority. But the Constitution does not say “consult slowly.” It does not elevate dithering to a virtue. Whether a retirement is scheduled or sudden, the process remains identical: consult, appoint, move on. The Judiciary is not a pension queue; it requires leadership, not suspense.
He calls efficiency “suspicious.” That says more about his cynicism than about the Constitution. It’s the lawyer’s version of superstition — if something works smoothly, it must be corrupt. Apparently, competence now requires a delay to look legitimate.
Then comes the melodrama: Daly wonders aloud whether there was a “clandestine motive.” When a man runs out of arguments, he imports mystery. The problem is that there’s none to be found. The appointment followed the law, the Judiciary avoided a vacuum, and the country carried on. The only “motive” here is Daly’s craving for another scandal to narrate.
His attempted contrast with CJ Archie’s appointment is laughable. That process, too, was branded controversial in its day. So perhaps the real tradition isn’t bungling — it’s commentators like Daly manufacturing crisis from normal governance.
He repeats, as though reading from a looped teleprompter, that Chief Justice Boodoosingh is worthy, brilliant, apolitical, and widely respected — and yet somehow still the product of malfeasance. It’s like congratulating a man on his wedding while insisting the ceremony was a coup d’état.
And then, inevitably, comes the moral high ground: Daly rails against “zealots,” as though public disagreement were heresy. It’s a transparent attempt to make criticism of him look like an attack on democracy. Sorry, Martin — criticism is not zealotry; it’s what happens when people stop genuflecting to your columns.
If Daly wants to play historian, he should start by checking the record — not his memories. If he wants to play constitutional scholar, he should name the clause he claims was breached. Until then, his lament is just that: a one-man orchestra of self-importance.
The Judiciary is functioning. The Constitution was obeyed. The only “botched process” still unfolding is Daly’s steady transformation from constitutional thinker to conspiracy enthusiast.