Desperately Seeking Integrity... (It's a Matter of Trust)

Having taken the public position that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of the Integrity Commission should step down for the clear breech of procedural etiquette (let's leave it at that for a bit) I have since been confronted by the opinions of two legal minds whom I respect but with whom I completely disagree on this matter. I want to say that in circumstances such as these, far beyond surmising lies truth; and while we may never be able to get exactly where we want to go, our first commitment must be to do no harm.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Integrity Commission Mr. Ken Gordon, a man who has done such yeoman service for this country we will never be able to thank him enough or to repay him, but this is the irony of the thing - I know in my heart of hearts that I am standing on the same side of this issue that Ken Gordon the man would stand on were he not one of the subjects of this issue, and as terribly unfortunate as this is, I hope that irony is not lost on him. Perhaps one day at another time he might tell me what was going through his mind when confronted with the consequences of an unforced error that he was roped into. It presents a serious complication - how does one hold onto one's integrity in judgement of one's self? Again I refer to 'first do no harm.' The very Integrity of the Integrity Commission hangs in the balance here, and the decisions made and the actions taken here could raise its stocks or lower its value. In this am I at least happy that one of the principal decision makers grappling with this knot is Ken Gordon. I trust him to do the right thing which, in this instance, is to step down so as to remove any semblance of corruption from that body.

Should he choose not to, then with a reluctant heart will I have to intervene as he has taught so many of us to do, and on behalf of the highest traditions and ideals to which we all aspire, will write to the President of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago requesting that he be removed from Office.

With regards to the Leader of the Opposition, it is with him and his actions I am most annoyed. If only one of the two parties knew the purpose and agenda of the meeting it was he, and if he did not and does not possess the ability to see how inappropriate his 'urgent' meeting taking place in secret between himself as complainant and the Chairman as chief investigator in the secluded privacy of the Chairman's home with no other witnesses impartial or otherwise present, over such a serious matter as the one he is prosecuting, then it is my view that he is nobody's leader and I thank God that he has exposed the inefficiencies in his character before achieving any higher Office.

His supporters remained stunned into submission and are parroting his nonsense only because they still believe that he must have known better and, having done what he did knowing better, obviously did nothing wrong. And it tis this same circular logic that he is using to prosecute the string of matters that, were they being handled by someone else, someone focused more on justice rather than in dislodging office holders from those that he covets we may have gotten more mileage and better results.

He has pursued these matters from a position of almost intellectual violence and has attempted to  rope the entire public into his gang. His position that if we are not for him we are for the government is silly school yard non-speak, his position that the quasi-evidence (if it could even be called that) that he read out in the nation's Parliament should be pursued because they COULD BE plausible is really the stuff of Hollywood fantasy script writing. He should be nominated for an Academy Award for this performance, and he should be removed from any position of leadership in this country before he does further harm.

But back on point, there were so many things wrong with this meeting that serious consequences HAVE to be the order of the day. In response to one of the learned legal luminaries who have weighed in on this matter that-"A “secret” meeting, which is the term being used to describe the discussion held between Dr Rowley and Mr Gordon at the home of the latter, does not in itself mean that the conduct of the former amounts to a crime. In order to be in breach of the law, Dr Rowley must be shown to have willfully conducted himself to such a degree to amount to an abuse of public trust. Based on what has been reported, in my view, the meeting was improper and a poor exercise in judgment but there is nothing placed in the public domain to suggest that the choice of meeting place and the content of the discussion are sufficient to amount to conduct that violates public trust." - I would like to ask of my esteemed friend - HOW could you know? HOW do you arrive at your 'judgement?' By what means did you 'suss out' these facts?

THIS is the heart of the matter, because while I, like you, want to believe that nothing sinister occurred, in the absence of any other facts, HOW on earth can we ever know for sure?

It is that breech of transparency, that 'improper and a poor exercise in judgment' (your words) that collapses the thing and your statement here amounts to a child's belief that the world disappears when you close your eyes.

In all things we all must not only remember but insist, that justice must not only BE done, but that it must be SEEN to be done, that is, if it is or real intention to do no harm.