Jacking It Up....

The ethical dilemma that is Jack Warner continues to send ripples if not convulsions through the highest offices of the land, based in no small part on the man, his history, and his propensity to leave carnage in his wake as he does 'as he damn well pleases.' His recent elevation to the extremely sensitive National Security Ministry has caused many including learned jurists to pause and reflect on this new challenge to what can be considered wrong or right in law as opposed to what one can get away with, and this is the problem that must be faced sooner rather than later.

The questions surrounding the monies owed to footballers, the allegations of impropriety while he was head of this country's football, the circumstances surrounding the bribe money, the candidates, and the Hyatt hotel as well as his hasty exit from world football have never been properly answered much less ventilated, and until they are dealt with satisfactorily it is my view that he should not be in any state or national office for fear of bringing the entire thing into disrepute. Arguments can and have been made that allegations are not convictions and until charges are laid there is no case and this would be true in circumstances where the presumption of guilt does not do damage regardless of the assumption of innocence. In the United States the President can be brought down for committing both 'high crimes or misdemeanors,' leaving no room for negotiating how seriously the framers viewed integrity in public office.

Now to compound the matter we are faced with his brash and jackbooted approach to his new position and has made such a mess of things that I cannot see how he still has this job. That we as a nation have not yet torn up our own constitution in our attempts to rid our country of the scourge of crime is a testament to our desire to still have a democracy after, and this 'strong man' approach needs to be resisted with everything we have and put down before it does more harm than good.

Many on either side further confound the problem by reducing the discussion to personalities, but it should never be; the issue must never be about whether you 'like' Jack or not as a person or even if he is the hardest working dwarf in the kingdom, but rather what we see of ourselves in the collective pool. In our situation here it is clear that his appointment to the Cabinet has been a challenge not only to the Parliamentary code of ethics, but to the very standards that are supposed to be achieved and kept when one is elevated to such high office in the first place. There can be no sugarcoating this and regardless of his much touted ability, his presence affects what should be a national moral code and steers it toward 'who dares wins.' In times of moral crisis such as these, this could never be good for the nation as a whole. Kamla Persad Bissessar alone can know what was in her mind when she appointed him to this office and only she can make things right, but in this instance and guided by recent developments, she needs to take firm decisive action here if she does not want to be dragged down with him.