Mistakes, Misbehaviour & Misconduct...

Section four of the Sedition Act of 1920 says that - “A person is guilty of an offence who does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention or communicates any statement having a seditious intention. Section three of the Act defines sedition as such - A seditious intention is an intention to raise discontent or disaffection amongst inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago; to engender or promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between one or more sections of the community on the one hand and any other section or sections of the community on the other hand; or feelings of ill-will towards, hostility to or contempt for any class of inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago distinguished by race, colour, religion, profession, calling or employment.”

Based on the above I ask, what exactly was National Security Minister Jack Warner trying to do  when he remonstrated the Leader of the Opposition from the Divali Nagar stage? Was he trying to set 'bonafide' Hindus and East Indians against him? To what end? What of Housing Minister Roodal Moonilal's vitriol spewed onto the entire Re-Route Movement in general and against Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh and his family in particular during the Government's paid political highway meeting in Debe, was it meant to 'sic' the public against them? In what way?

In the increasingly charged and sometimes racist atmosphere of Trinidad & Tobago's politics I put to you that both of these occasions were examples of highly irresponsible behaviour by two senior government officials who ought to have known better and are situations that warrant investigation into intent as both together raises the question, does one have to be aware of the potential consequences for civil unrest that could be unleashed by one's words to be held responsible for the use of those words in public fora?

In her article 'Misconduct and the Integrity Commission' former Law Association President Dana Seetahal wrote - “The law on misconduct in public office was considered in a 2003 English case which held that the elements of the offence are: 1. a public officer acting as such; 2. willful neglect to perform his duty and /or willfully misconducts himself; 3. to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder; and 4. without reasonable excuse or justification. The court said that "willful misconduct" means deliberately doing something which is wrong either (a) knowing it to be wrong or (b) with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong. This means that the person was aware of the risk [of doing something wrong] and took it.”

Is it then fair to surmise then that as a former Judge former Justice Minister Herbert Volney was fully aware of both his actions and the possible consequences regarding his role in the early pronouncement of Section 34? Ms. Seetahal went on - “The consequences likely to flow will be relevant to determine whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public trust” and I wonder if this is not precisely what the Prime Minister meant when she said “The minister had a duty to faithfully and accurately represent the position and views of the CJ and DPP and he failed so to do and the Cabinet, relying in good faith, acted on his assurances. His failure so to do is a serious mis-representation and amounts to material non-disclosure of relevant facts to the Cabinet which effectively prevented the Cabinet from making an informed decision.”

In her dismissal of Volney the Prime Minister said 'the bill approved by the Legislative Review Committee and by the Cabinet did not contain the version of Section 34 that was eventually passed by both Houses of Parliament, that she was now satisfied there was no proper or adequate consultation with either the CJ or DPP and she was also satisfied that both legitimately expected there would be no partial proclamation of the act, as Volney had given assurances to that effect at the July 24 meeting.' Based on all of this I would like to ask, to whom must a request be made that investigations into such matters be initiated?