In the opening salvo of his release the Attorney General states - “The Attorney General condemns the vindictive, vicious and vile attack against the character of the Honorable Prime Minister by former minister Verna St Rose Greaves.”' - and I ask, if he believes what he says, why take this route? Why not take legal action against the former Minister for libel, defamation and slander? Noting that she (Verna) has made these 'allegations' without the protection of Parliamentary privilege and him being no stranger to the courts, why a release?
He goes on to say - “There is no truth to the defamatory allegations about her personal life. She is certainly not the subject of blackmail by any government minister.” - A clear case of protesting too much, it is HIS name more than any other that is called by exiting members as exerting the most undue influence over her, so why does he believe himself having the authority to dispel this notion?
He further says - “The PM leads with a firm hand but compassionate heart without fear or favour to anyone in the Cabinet” - and yet he and others feel the need to engage in what can only be considered a public relations exercise rather than taking the prescribed action afforded by the law of the land. That we live in a country that values rumor just as much as fact is a given, and this current administration would be telling untruths if they were to say that this has not benefitted them greatly in getting (back) into office, so why is this rumor being allowed to propagate? Is it that there may be more in the mortar here?
Shifting gears to deflection mode he (Ramlogan) goes on to say - “No one, for example, would have dared to ask Sir Ellis Clarke, or Basdeo Panday if they had a “substance abuse” problem.” - but that is a clear untruth and if memory serves me correctly at one point there was an 'assistant' whose job it was to follow then Prime Minister Panday around to remove his 'drinking' glass whenever the media was present. As to Sir Ellis, his love of strong drink was legendary yet it somehow never seemed to incapacitate him, but perhaps that has more to do with the way he conducted himself both in private and in public.
Deflections aside, the question remains, why does the Attorney General not advise the Prime Minister that she should sue Verna St. Rose Greaves, Jack Warner, Basdeo Panday, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and every other person whoever ascribed this particular problem to her person? Why is the normally legally-trigger-happy Anand Ramlogan of legend avoiding the obvious benefits of challenging 'client Kamla's' accusers in a court of law?
The court of public opinion translates into votes and every politician is only too aware of that fact, so why is this case being handled so clumsily? Is the reluctance based on the fact that a court can summon members of the security detail, drivers, automobile maintenance workers, helicopter pilots, assistants, former colleagues, Ministers, Senators and friends?
IS it that he is only too aware that a court could order a blood test?
We are at a disturbing place where the lines of rumor, innuendo and fact are blurring in reference to no less an office than that of the nation's highest office, a situation that ought not to be allowed to fester unexamined. We the people have a right to ask - if these allegations are untrue, if there is no validity to the rumors, why are no steps being taken to resolve this issue once and for all?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.