Inquiry can gauge our maturity

When Prime Minister Patrick Manning announced on Friday that it was with a “heavy heart” that he had advised the President to set up a tribunal to investigate the Chief Justice, members of the Opposition benches jeered. But, even if Mr Manning is not actually saddened, this is not a situation that any Prime Minister would wish for. Even Basdeo Panday, were he in Mr Manning’s shoes, would find it awkward to institute proceedings against the CJ. The situation is more complicated for Mr Manning because of the race factor but, were Mr Panday still in office he, too, would undoubtedly be discomfited. Indeed, even he would not escape the racial dimension, since when Mr Panday was Prime Minister he was accused by those on his own side of having betrayed his ethnic group.

In any case, the Opposition Leader earns himself no kudos by calling for a commission of inquiry to investigate whether there has been a conspiracy against the CJ — a call that is impractical and which panders to the worst instincts of the people who Mr Panday is addressing. It is apparent, however, that the UNC has decided that it will be politically effective to play the race card in this situation. This is certainly irresponsible, but that does not mean that Mr Panday’s strategy is necessarily wrong. It may well be that, by making Mr Sharma an ethnic cause c?lebr?, the UNC will rally its ethnic base. But, in our opinion, such a strategy is likely to backfire. While we do have racial politics in Trinidad and Tobago, we do not have racist politics. Which is to say that, while all our politicians use coded tribal language at some point, none dare make overtly bigoted statements in public, since this would surely sink their electoral boat.

Moreover, citizens are, we think, aware that the coming inquiry represents a critical juncture in our still-nascent social order. Mr Manning, in his statement last Friday on this issue, has set the proper tone: considered, balanced, deliberate. He played politics only in his curious announcement that the Government had hired Scotland Yard detectives to find out who leaked relevant information to the media. Since such an airing was surely in the interest of citizens’ right to know, it appears that the Prime Minister, by taking such action at taxpayers’ expense, was really trying to cover himself.

This is par for the course. It would be far too much to expect that this situation will evoke more statesmanship than gamesmanship in the coming months. That is why Mr Manning misses the point when he invoked the sub judice rule as a basis for people tempering “wild and intemperate” remarks. While no one should comment on the CJ’s guilt or innocence, this is a matter whose wider implications must be — and, indeed, will be — debated as the process gets underway.

As for the process itself, the first hurdle will be the composition of the tribunal. Mr Panday has already revealed his mindset when he asserts that there is nobody in this country who can be trusted to be impartial. In any case, judges from any Commonwealth country can sit on the tribunal, and it is the Privy Council that will make the final decision. Certainly, though, the Government should not choose anyone, local or foreign, without consulting the Opposition. In the final analysis, this inquiry will be a stern test of our society. But, if we treat the issue with circumspection and maturity, the CJ controversy can become a stepping stone, instead of a stumbling block, for the nation.