As I recall, some years ago I was having lunch at a table with a group that, by the merest coincidence, included a young lady from Ghana. We weren’t talking about anything in particular when the conversation drifted to a “human interest” story that had been receiving quite a bit of international play at the time.
The story was that of the wife of a young Ghanian government minister who had bought “a golden bed” in Britain for a small fortune. Naturally, the idea of corruption on the part of her husband was the first thing to cross our minds. That trend of thought was brought to an abrupt end when the Ghanian woman informed us that the “golden bed” girl was a personal friend of hers and came from “a filthy rich” family, if you’ll excuse the term, and buying a “golden bed” wasn’t the big thing that they were making it out to be. Beside this, she did not only possess independent means but she couldn’t care less about any possible embarrassment that might have been caused to her husband or the government by her “If-you-have-it-flaunt-it” style.
Now supposing — and we’re only supposing — that the wife of one of our government ministers was reported to have ordered her own “golden bed,” bedecked with the finest diamonds, would it be fair to jump to conclusions about her husband’s financial integrity before establishing whether she had independent means of her own, especially before her husband became a minister? Even so, her extravagant displays of opulence might be somewhat embarrassing to her husband, the Government and even the country. I’m aware that there are a number of foolish people who’d buy the excuse of the “protection of privacy” argument and tell us that “it’s none of our damn business.” But let’s be real. It’s quite possible for some “ketch-arse, scruntin” politician to accumulate massive wealth at the public’s expense in bribes, kickbacks and so on and so on. The only guarantee that the public has is that the politician’s net income, assets and liabilities be known (at least, registered somewhere) before assuming office and monitored thereafter until he/she demits office. This helps to keep a check on the dishonest ones as well as safeguarding the interests of the honest ones, as in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, there’s the facile assumption that “all ah dem tief.” No doubt, there are fellows who behave as if the national cash register belongs to them. But should everyone be painted with the same broad brush?
It has now become a standing joke that a fellow could first be asked, “Boy, how is it that such large sums of some money have found their way into your foreign bank accounts or have passed through them?” The initial response is to play possum. “Who me? What accounts? That’s a lot of rubbish and political propaganda and dirty tricks, yuh mad or what!” On being confronted with incriminating, documentary material, the story changes to some bizarre or bogus version until the whole thing is “dismissed” as mere allegations about which my lawyers have advised me to say nothing further and, hopefully, the matter will die “a natural death.” Now I don’t have to tell you that just as there are “lawyers and lawyers” there are “allegations and allegations.” I’m reminded of the judge who once inquired, in his court, “Who made this allegation?” A voice blurted out, “Me, my Lord, I am the alligator!” It occurred to me that some people could well be skipping on the slippery slope of credibility challenged integrity, pursued by a host of “Alligators!”
I’m aware of the saying that, “the law is an ass,” and it’s mostly applicable when there is a clear “Travesty of justice” or where the miscreant is “let off” through some legal loophole or “legal technicality.” Of course, the lawyer will tell you that, “it’s my duty to assume my client’s innocence,” whatever my own “feelings” about his innocence or otherwise. I’m reminded of the story of the fellow who thanked his lawyer thus: “You are so persuasive, you almost convinced me that I didn’t commit the crime.” I must, however, point out that in some cases of great public interest, especially in politics, a trial conceivably take place, concurrently in two courts to wit, “the legal court and the court of public opinion.” An issue may be “resolved” in one court and remain unresolved in another. Now a case that comes readily to mind is the one involving the leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday. Now I’m not so rash or foolish to say anything that can possibly be construed as prejudicial one way or the other, so I’ll confine myself to what is clearly in the public domain.
Put simply, Mr Panday appears to having omitted to report certain amounts in certain accounts. He’s publicly admitted, among other things, that they may not be his accounts. Far it be from me to venture any further, but I’m like most average citizens, a bit puzzled to hear that Mr Panday was charged under a statute that had already been effectively repealed at the time of its supposed infraction. I’m still more puzzled to hear that after two years in office not a single member of the PNM has filed Declaration of Assets. Now if the recent newspaper reports are indeed accurate, then not only has government not laid in parliament the forms for public officials to declare their assets and incomes but PM Manning has been contemptuously indifferent to the Commission Chairman’s concerns. Manning’s reported handling of the “integrity issue” smacks of an unbelievable arrogance and political immaturity and insensitivity and a well known PNM propensity “to talk the talk about integrity and a corresponding reluctance to walk the walk” in this twilight zone of “transparency.” Dr Eric Williams’ interest in integrity legislation never went beyond “lip service” and the beat goes on!
