N Touch

Guardian Star sails to regatta glory

THE TRIO of Tim Kimpton, Paul Amon and Peter Knox completed a successful week on the waters off Store Bay with overall victory aboard Guardian Star in the Racing Class category yesterday as the 21st annual Angostura Tobago Sail Week ended.

The modified Beneteau 10-metre vessel won yesterday’s Race Day Four sponsored by Tobago House of Assembly (THA) Department of Tourism and exacted a measure of revenge on their competitors after finishing second last year under the name Hooligan. Guardian Star finished the Regatta with a tally of six points, with Tenshun, led by Trinidad and Tobago Sailing Association’s (TTSA) Michael Rostant second on 14 points and Stag Brut Force, a J-35 led by Glenn Castagne third on 28.

Sean Atwell’s Ninja, which placed third last year, ended the 2003 version in fourth spot with 29 points, the same tally as 2002 champ Slippery When Wet, the Henderson 30 owned by Peter Peake, while Dougie Myers’ Legacy was sixth with 32 points. With defending Cruiser-Racing class champ Spirit of St Nick unable to complete the event due to a broken mast, 2002 runner-up Wayward, a Beneteau 435 owned by Jerome McQuilkin, topped the division with Hugo, a Beneteau 435 led by Antiguan Hugo Bailey, jumping from third last year to second on 11 points, joint runner-up with L’Antillaise owned by Ronnie “Stretch” Jackson.

Other Results:
Cruising — 1. Sun Beat III 7 pts; 2. After Hours 12 pts; 3. Hotel California Too 16 pts.
Charter Class I — 1. Saga Boy 4 pts; 2. Long Gone 11 pts; 3. Obsession 13 pts.
Charter Class II —- 1.French Connection 7 pts; 2.Hienga 10 pts; 3.Spit Fire 16 pts.
Comfort Cruising —- 1.Udjat 7 pts; 2.Maid of Marlin 12 pts; 3.De Rob 14 pts.

Unjustified caution

WE FEEL sure that every decent, law-abiding citizen in Trinidad and Tobago would want to believe that the Commission of Inquiry now investigating the Piarco Development Project is operating according to proper procedure, is abiding by its terms of reference and that no one coming before it is being denied his legal or constitutional rights. They would be expecting this, not only because of the status and integrity of the Commissioners but also because, like this newspaper, they expect that the findings of this investigation will provide the basis on which justice would be done with regard to this scandalous project through which the public purse was indecently and avariciously plundered. It would be a grievous outcome if, because of some lapse or oversight or denial on the part of the Commissioners, their findings were disqualified from serving that ultimate retributive purpose.

This inquiry follows prolonged agitation by respectable and responsible sectors of our society, including the media, leaders of the construction industry and Transparency International. Indeed, no society, on becoming aware of the massive level of corruption involved in such a mega-project, could remain complacent about it, unless, of course, such a society cared nothing about standards of honesty and morality and was quite happy to self-destruct from an internal rot of basic human values. For this reason, we expect that members of the legal profession, themselves intimately concerned with questions of justice and the upholding of standards, would be prepared, if not anxious, to provide the Inquiry with help and guidance to ensure its proper functioning. We sincerely hope that is the motive behind the advice recently given to the Commission by the Law Association urging that “great caution” be taken in following the inquisitorial procedure of Lord Justice Scott whose article, “Procedure at Public Inquiries: The Duty to be Fair,” was quoted at the Commission’s sitting on March 27, 2003.

It seems unfortunate, however, that the Association, in issuing its public caution, did not in the first instance determine whether there was any justification at all for it, in terms of actual breaches by the Commission. While it may be true that the inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Scott incurred much criticism, particularly for his denial of legal representation to witnesses, nothing in the procedure adopted by this law lord, as far as we can determine, could be used to apply to the conduct of the Piarco Inquiry. Indeed, it would demonstrate a sad ignorance and constitute an injustice for the Law Association even to suggest that, like Lord  Scott’s inquiry, witnesses coming before the Commission are being denied the right to legal representation. This newspaper has covered sittings of the Commission since they began and we have heard no such complaints from witnesses. No request for attorneys has been denied; in fact, on occasion, Chairman Bernard has insisted that such representation be obtained and has even adjourned sessions to facilitate witnesses when their lawyers could not be present. “The end result,” the Chairman observed in dealing with the criticisms levelled at the Commission, “is that the Association has taken an uninformed but, nevertheless, belligerent approach to the Inquiry, a scenario that is curious to say the least.” This, we think, is regrettable; the Association, aware of the horror being revealed by the Inquiry, should be helpful rather than adversarial.  

Protecting the judiciary from politicians


We tend, almost as a rule, to be very tolerant of the shenanigans of our practising politicians and would greet their political antics and acrobatics with an expansive yawn or a bored shrug, as if to say: “What else do you expect from that lousy lot?” However, we become somewhat nervous and apprehensive when something seems amiss in or with the Judiciary.

Perhaps, instinctively, we recognise that the judiciary is one of the three independent and crucial pillars upon which our democratic republic presumably rests. The other two are the executive and the legislative branches of Government, which are not my present concern. However, I crave your indulgence gentle reader, if I may, to digress a bit to point out that even our political leaders do not seem to be able to distinguish the difference between “government and governance” and that leads them into colossal blunders. Now this is not a question of semantics or splitting hairs. So when a former prime minister of any country refers to the “governance of his country” it’s certainly not synonymous with the “government of his country,” though it must necessarily include substantial references to the textual and other aspects of “the government.”

It therefore seems to me that the status and function of the judiciary are very much a part of the governance of our country — a notion that more than one political leader has either been unaware of or has studiously ignored. Now to continue from where I digressed, the judicial function in our constitution is entrusted to the courts, which are responsible for administering justice “without fear or favour, malice or ill will,” as they like to put it. The judicial officers are expected to adjudicate according to the particular merits of the case before them and their best understanding of how the relevant law applies. Of course, one understands that there are instances when justice is tempered with mercy. To ensure the independence and impartiality of judges and those who perform judicial functions, their conditions of employment, security of tenure and other relevant factors must be such as to insulate them from political pressures or extraneous influences emanating from the legislature, executive, privileged or powerful sections of the community or any other discernible source.

Now, here’s a risk that I simply have to take even if I invite some flak from rum shops and fish markets when I suggest (with appropriate apologies to those offended) that judges should also be protected against the rum shop talk and fish market behaviour of politicians. In the recent past, I’ve heard of judges being lambasted on political platforms and political leaders even telling their public audiences that they cannot expect justice from the courts. For any number of reasons, judges cannot deal effectively with the scurrilous personal attacks and scandalous personal behaviour of politicians. I don’t suppose they have any other option than to ignore those louts and clowns and maintain their personal and professional dignity. On a memorable occasion, the then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, presumably exposing his party’s strategy to pre-empt any anticipated adverse effect on their cause, dealt a low and unwarranted blow to impugn a judge’s character, credibility and judgment while also attempting to hold him up to public contempt and ridicule on the eve of his delivering his judgment.

Well, elements of the media (myself included) took up the cudgels, not on behalf of the judge, but out of indignation for the crass political tactics involved, without any thought for the dignity of and respect for our judicial system. For that political/judicial indiscretion, Ramesh got more blows than a Good Friday Bobolee. On a more serious note, our first Chief Justice, Sir Hugh Wooding, is reported to have observed that his salary as Chief Justice reminded him of what he paid as income tax on his previous earnings. The moral of the story was that the country couldn’t afford to pay for the legal services of Sir Hugh. He was already financially secure and was only doing his country a favour. A subsequent Chief Justice, Isaac Hyatali, commenting on the country’s inability to attract the best legal minds, spoke about “the judicial brandy being watered down.”

It’s, I suppose, well known that Basdeo Panday gave this country a roller-coaster ride that we shall never forget. Even one of his perennial political sponsors and apologists threw up his hands in obvious consternation, as he thought that the political pendulum had moved too far in the opposite direction and said “Panday was generally playing the arse.” What else is new? Of course I’m told that stronger language was used, but that will have to do. There was also the suggestion that “they should lock him up.” But since when political stupidity is a crime? On another more serious note, the confrontation between then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and then Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide also gave the impression that, “… something was probably rotten, but it was not necessarily in the state of Denmark.” There appears to be never a dull moment in this neck of the woods. The first salvo came from the then Chief Justice who intimated that the AG was apparently involved in some scheme or other to “clip his (the CJ’s) wings and “rolling over” was not an option. There was much public speculation. Was it a clash between two “strong” personalities or a misunderstanding of respective roles? What, if any, principles were involved? What, if any, lessons have been learnt, in the event of a reoccurrence? — with different actors, of course.

Placing money at men’s feet

THE EDITOR: I read in your papers recently, an article where a foreign pastor came to Trinidad to host a conference and women in the audience were just coming and placing money at his feet. As a woman myself, I feel sorry for my peers. They are looking for the Elijah experience.

No doubt they believed that they were going to receive blessings in return. Well, they will be waiting for a long time. Besides, one wonders if those women are as respectful and loyal to their husbands as they show themselves to other men (pastors). Women, generally, are so easily led moreso than men. They would go and clean the pastor’s house and leave their own untidy. They would go for counselling and cry out their hearts to these pastors about their problems and not even discuss it with their husbands.

They would always clap and put up their hands to everything in agreement with what is said from the pulpit, without even thinking for themselves.
They would pay their tithes to a church which is not doing anything substantial for the poor and they would turn their backs on their family and other people who need help. But I don’t blame them or the pastors for not stopping them from putting money at their feet, because this is what they are taught to give to man and incidentally, I understand this foreign pastor has his own plane! Don’t worry, we copy everything from America. Some local pastor is going to come up with this idea and say God told him to go and buy a plane.

And guess what, the majority of women will believe him. And you know, Jesus was clear on what he said about giving. You continue in your ways and there surely would be a gnashing of teeth. And to you self-appointed pastors (not all), you continue in your selfish, greedy and dishonest ways and do not attempt to do what Jesus said concerning the poor and you may very well end up in a place where none of us wants to go. Remember the parable of the samaritan that Jesus left with us. Start feeding programmes for the poor like Pastor Lloyd Hart in San Fernando.


GWENDOLYN  ROBERTS
Carenage

Condom giveaway will add to problems

The Editor: WHEN Svenn Miki Grant distributed contraceptives to students outside of a secondary school, it should have provided a very clear picture in the minds of policy makers, teachers and parents of the depths to which the social sectors have deteriorated.

It should in fact have been a rude wake up call for the decision makers in Trinidad and Tobago — this is where our country has come and these are the people who are gaining influence over children. Grant’s action was highly irresponsible and showed an over zealousness on his part to act, regardless of whether proper thought was given on possible outcomes. The action shows too that Grant, in his haste to take a stand and do something outrageous, neglected to consider the many stages that children must be taken through before they are handed contraceptives. Students in the existing school system and other teenagers and young adults outside of the school system need to have many needs met before they can be brought to the stage of having such easy access to contraceptives. They need to be re-educated and to some extent, re-socialised into understanding that sex is not based on a point system so that friends can call you “big man” or “big oman”.

They need to understand that sex is not about achieving social acceptance. They need to understand that sex is not a must, but rather a choice that involves two people, a choice that is made once you have arrived at the right level of thinking and after much consideration. They also need to understand that sex is not a man’s decision. More than that, they need to understand the range of possibilities that arise from sex and the fact that they could face new, very heavy responsibilities.Had Grant given real thought and consulted with persons in fields of specialisation such as education, family planning, youth development, Government, religion, communications and business, the current scenario would not have arisen. An activist seeking the interest of the teenager and young adult must necessarily consider where the child’s heart and mind are at. He must consider if the child or teenager or young adult:
— fully understands his own emotions?
— understands the nature of sexual contact?
— understands how his actions can impact on the lives of others?
— has a grounding in a particular religion?
— has a stable home life?
— has personal mental or emotional problems?
— knows how to use contraceptives?
— have sufficient sexual education?

I have in the past been a strong advocate for the upgrading of the school curriculum to include sex education. In the face of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spreading at uncontrollable rates, children need to be educated on the different aspects of sex if they are to become partners in curbing the spread of diseases. What children do not need is to get mixed messages from persons they see as exemplars. Someone walking onto a school compound and sharing contraceptives can easily send the wrong message. The teenager can easily walk away convinced that: “Okay, well what I am doing is right, I just need to use this thing.” The argument of whether pre-marital sex is right or wrong is not my concern here as this should be a strictly personal decision made by a person who has all the facts. My argument is that such an action should not have been taken before the activist came up with a plan to properly guide children through the stages of sex education. And in all fairness to the many parents trying to do the right thing by their children, Grant’s rebellious actions could well have undermined their own plans for their children’s development.

We ought not try to hide from the fact that the number of persons engaged sexual promiscuity can possibly amount to enough to remove or install an entire Government. That is a fact that we cannot escape. We also cannot hide from the fact that, in spite of talk of tough measures of fight HIV/AIDS by the current and past Governments, there are people in this country who are not aware of what HIV/AIDS is. That is the reality of the lack of sexual education our children have. And in passing out contraceptives to children of varying degrees of sexual awareness, Grant has added to the problem rather than done something to help. His action was tantamount to giving a boat and oars to someone, unable to swim and with no idea of the sea, telling him he didn’t have to worry about swimming anymore. That person might make it out to sea and back safely, but what happens if he falls into the water? That Grant has shown clearly his willingness to take action is very encouraging, but as with everything else, there must be a very thorough assessment of the problem, proposals for possible solutions, consideration of the possible drawbacks and then action. I feel sure that Grant’s heart is in the right place and he tried to do something positive, but his action showed quite clearly that there was little thought behind his move. What his organisation should be advocating and seeking support for is the implementation of sexual education progammes in schools. In fact, he should even call together expertise to draft it into syllabus form and present it to the Minister of Education, while at the same time, trying to cooperate with other organisations to build effective awareness programmes.


Roger D Ramcharitar
Chaguanas

‘Trinis cannot bear much reality’

THE Editor: As a youth, it is now being made clear to me that our culture, and by  extension our educational system, has in more ways than one screwed us over. 

The societal substance abuse that allows our ‘elders’ to speak such  insanity toward the topic of condom distribution and availability to youth  begs me to ask:  Why can’t they see that their cultural canopy is proving  more of a hindrance to their child’s development than an aid? It can only  be because they are indeed afraid.  Afraid to concede to the possibility  that their child may be having sex; afraid to recognise that maybe, just  maybe, they didn’t do enough to educate their child on his/her sexuality and  rights pertaining to such; and even more deathly afraid that by allowing  some ‘24-year-old joker’ access to this sacred ground of influence on  their child, that it may somehow prove that they failed as parents.  My  response to that would be:  Stop thinking about your damn selves and start  thinking about your children.  Just once, detach yourselves from the  assumptions of your own generation and really acknowledge those of ours.

TS Eliot once wrote:  “Humans cannot bear much reality.”  In this  case, I would alter it minimally to say:  Trinis cannot bear much reality. To our society’s fiery demise, we have allowed ourselves to be distorted  by and buried in the conventional, conservative and antiquated protocols of  the 1950s and 60s, thereby altering the realities of 2003.  The reality  is, yes.  Very young people are having sex.  It may even be your child.  The  reality too is, yes.  Very young people actually come with brains.  Funny  how we’re made that way, eh?  What I’d put to you readers and parents out  there now is:  What are you doing to help?  And if you’re not doing anything  or you feel like you’re not doing enough and you’re ready to admit this, then why should you try to stop others from positively picking up your slack?

A lot of people have condemned the actions of the Advocates for Youth Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights. Surprisingly enough it was a group out there and not just Svenn Grant without fully understanding their singleness and simplicity of intention.  That we should deny any attempt to educate children about the dangers and pitfalls of their sexual practices, even after the abstinence rhetoric has unabashedly failed, is reason enough to analyse where our priorities as members of society lay. We ought to applaud the improvisational fire of AYSHR, and encourage more ways to inflame the population to act in a more positive and progressive manner toward educational reform and the further instruction of our youth.  Some say the approach was too radical. I say dissociate form from content.
Peace and love.


Melissa Gabriel
Port-of-Spain

Business venture for CEPEP bosses

THE EDITOR: These people posing as Ministers of Government and their predecessors, as we all know, “perform” best reactively.

They know or hear about being proactive at seminars and similar talk shops. Every project attempted as we have seen happens by vaps or “just so”. There is no planning for either the short, medium or long term, what is done is just a means to hoodwink the nation. Look at CEPEP. Tomfoolery to the highest. You take taxpayers money, give to friends and family to move dry grass, erect wooden benches with discarded wood and paint stones with repossessed foreign used paint and tell them they are entrepreneurs.

To save face and to help justify your existence I suggest to CEPEP entrepreneurs the following: tell the CEPEP inventor that you are proactive and can think. Rain will fall in abundance soon (Grimes will justify his pay then). When it falls/pours there will be massive floodings. It is here you CEPEP entrepreneurs come in. Go now and get all the mops you could put your hands on. Get discarded sponge too. Get buckets, two litre and plastic gallon bottles. Also get big water tanks. Ask the CEPEP inventor for 20 and 40 foot containers and identify a country experiencing drought.

When the rain pours and the place floods you put your workers to collect the water using the equipments you get, store it in the tanks, refill them in the plastic containers, stuff them into the containers and ship it to the drought infected country where the water will be recycled and put for human consumption or water plants. Money, money, money in your pockets. Plenty money to make. Make some money when the rain pours.


LYSTRA LYTHE
Sangre Grande

Law Association misleading public — Bernard

Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport Project, former Chief Justice Clinton Bernard, has responded to a letter from the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago urging the Commission to exercise great caution with respect to following the procedure of the British inquiry under Sir Richard Scott of the Privy Council. The full text of the letter was read into the records of the Piarco Inquiry last Wednesday and is reproduced below:


May 13, 2003


The Honorary Secretary,
Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago,
Suite 4, Chancery Courtyard,
13-15, St Vincent Street
PORT-OF-SPAIN


Attention: Mr Hendrickson RM Seunath SC


Dear Sir


My Commission acknowledges your letter dated 28th April, 2002 enclosing an article by Lord Howe of Aberavon (Howe) and in reply to ours of 9th April, 2003 forwarding to you an Addendum to the opening statement of this Inquiry (Statement) which was accompanied by the Inquiry’s procedural rules (Rules). We were aware of Howe’s article which is critical of the Scott Inquiry’s refusal to afford legal representation to those appearing before it.

The Statement and Rules above, which were forwarded to you as long ago as August 2002 would have made you aware that this Inquiry, unlike the “Scott Inquiry” has given the right to all persons appearing before it who are interested in its Terms of Reference to be legally represented. Accordingly, Howe’s article which is a criticism of Scott’s decision to refuse such legal representation to him and others during the course of an Inquiry in which Howe was a witness, bears no relevance to the present Inquiry.

What is more, the Council has on previous occasions publicly criticised this Inquiry for identifying persons interested in its Terms of Reference as “subjects” while now “going on record” in connection with Howe’s article on the issue of legal representation. As the Council will be aware however, the “subjects” of the Inquiry are the very persons entitled as of right under the Commission of Inquiry Act Chapter 19:01 to legal representation. The relevant Section reads as follows:
“Any person whose conduct is the subject of the inquiry under this Act or who is in any way implicated or concerned in the matter under enquiry, shall be entitled to be represented by counsel at the whole of the inquiry, and any other person who may consider it desirable that he should be so represented may, by leave of the commissioners, be represented in the same manner.”


The issue of legal representation, therefore, has been addressed by this Commission strictly in accordance with the Act. Conversely, your Association has publicly criticised this tribunal precisely for identifying the persons entitled to legal representation by the Act. In so far as legal representation has fallen within the discretion of the tribunal under the Act, had your Council enquired, it would have become aware that not a single request for legal representation has been refused, and on occasion, such representation has been insisted upon by the Tribunal. We have even adjourned sittings from time to time in order to accommodate such persons when their lawyers were not available.

The Association has issued several press statements critical of this Inquiry without first apprising itself of the correspondence passing between this Inquiry and persons interested in its proceedings. If your association had sight of such correspondence, we feel sure that it would not have issued such releases. The end result is that the Association has taken an uninformed, but, nevertheless belligerent approach to the Inquiry, a scenario which is curious to say the least. We would welcome any other comments you may wish to make about the procedures adopted at this Inquiry, which, as far as our researches have gone, was the first to issue a detailed Statement and Procedural Rules for the assistance of all.

Your Council’s wish to “go on record” as advising great caution against following the procedure at the “Scott Inquiry” is utterly misleading to the uninformed reader. Not only is this Inquiry not adopting the procedure of the Scott Inquiry but your Council must be aware of this from the Statement and Rules in its possession. The Council must, as well, be aware that the Scott Inquiry was conducted within the parameters of a statute materially different to our own Commission of Inquiry Act.

As is apparent from our consideration of the issue in our Statement, we have given considerable time to the matter of procedure. In this regard, we share the opinion of Howe in the article provided by you that:
“Sir Richard seeks support for his approach from Sir Louis Blom-Cooper as well as from Lord Scarman’s management of the Red Lion Square Inquiry. Each of these credit-worthy authorities lends support in the passages cited by Sir Richard, to the proposition that those in charge of inquiries need to exercise wide discretionary power to control their proceedings, including the role and behaviour of advocates. But on the crucial point that lawyers can and should be excluded altogether neither Sir Louis nor Lord Scarman arrives at Sir Richard’s conclusion.” As there is no exclusion of lawyers before this tribunal, we are sure that your Council, having studied the Article and our Statement and Rules, would conclude that its words of caution are unnecessary, and as a responsible body, withdraw them.


Please be guided accordingly.


Yours faithfully


CLINTON BERNARD, TC, SC
For and on behalf of the Chairman and
Members of the Commission


The letter was copied to Karl Hudson Phillips, President of the Law Association, and attorneys Russel Martineau and James Aboud.

Mother strangled, then lover hangs himself

THE COMMUNITY of Partap Trace, South Oropouche, was rocked by scandal early yesterday morning when a 47-year-old man strangled his lover, who was also his relative, before committing suicide.

Kamal Mohammed, hung himself with a piece of rope in his house shortly after strangling his brother-in-law’s wife, Savitri Ramkissoon, 36, a mother of three. Mohammed’s wife, Sharda, and Ramkissoon’s husband, Ramesh, are brother and sister. The act seemed premeditated, as only three weeks ago Mohammed visited a media house and threatened to take his life and others. The reporter to whom he spoke recalled: “He said ‘plenty coffin going to come out from where I live including mine’.”  Mohammed also ensured that the bodies were found as he telphoned his son, Ryan, on Wednesday night and requested that he “check him” after work. Ryan, a cook at “The Original Barbeque Hut” at Bel Air, La Romaine, made the gruesome discovery around 1.30 am. Senior policemen disclosed that they found notes in Mohammed’s pants pocket in which Mohammed wrote about contemplating his suicide.

Mohammed was employed as a janitor at the Fyzabad Police Station, and Ramkissoon, a cook at the School Feeding Programme in Fyzabad. The two lived approximately one mile away from each other, with their separate families. Almost three weeks ago, Mohammed’s wife of 24 years, Sharda, left him after suffering years of physical abuse. “I knew about their relationship for almost two years,” she sobbed. Neighbours said that they knew of the lovers’ meetings, and that the relationship caused a division among the family. Ramesh, a fisherman, told Newsday that he had confronted his wife about Mohammed, but she always denied that it was true. He said: “She never used to talk much when I asked her about it. But the way she used to move I say she done with that.” However, Ramesh revealed that on two occasions Mohammed threatened to kill him. He said that while at a wedding in Partap Trace on May 4, Mohammed confronted him and said “ You spoil my house and I coming to kill you.” Last month after a cricket match, Ramesh recalled, Mohammed was intoxicated when he told him  “I coming to chop you up.”

Ramesh said on Wednesday evening he came home from work; when he did not see his wife by 7 pm he went in search of her in Fyzabad. When he did not see her by 9 pm, he said he thought she was at a co-worker’s house where she spent the night last week Friday. But several hours later, neighbours called him to Mohammed’s house where his wife’s lifeless body was found on a mattress on the floor in a bedroom. Detectives said that the woman’s body bore marks around her neck, and a green coloured substance was found on her blouse. The body was examined by District Medical Officer, Dr Bhimsingh, who ordered its removal to the San Fernando Mortuary. Visiting the scene were Homicide Sgt Whitaker, Siparia CID Sgt Michael Wells,  Cpl Leo Flanders and officers from the Oropouche CID.

Murdered prison officer got death threats

ONE MONTH ago, murdered prison officer Winston Sandy, 35, reported to senior officers at the Port-of-Spain Prison that he was receiving death threats from gang members who frequented the Nelson Street area. Sandy identified the persons who had been making the threats.

Sandy had mentioned the threats to his mother, Evelyn, and had expressed concerned for the safety of his family. Grieving relatives said Sandy did not identify to them the persons making the threats, but said he had reported the matter to his seniors. “We understand a prisoner ordered the execution of Sandy from inside the prison,” a relative of the dead man said yesterday. Claude Galston, President of the Prison Officers Association, expressed concern over the murder of his colleague and said a meeting is planned to discuss the threats to the lives of prison officers. He said the association will make a recommendation to Prisons Commissioner Leo Abraham for certain officers to be issued with guns. Galston believes if Sandy had a gun he would have been able to defend himself. He is calling on all prison officers to report any death threats to their seniors and the police station in their district.

Carlyle Babb, Public Relations Officer of the Association, said prison officers are threatened daily and it is part of the hazards of the job. He said Sandy joined the service in 1996, was an avid basketball player, produced children’s Carnival bands, and spent his time off volunteering at the Port-of-Spain General Hospital. He was also a young leader at the Mt  Beulah Spiritual Baptist Church of Cocorite. His funeral will take place on Monday at the Holy Trinity Cathedral, followed by burial at the Western Cemetery. He will be buried in his uniform and Spiritual Baptist clothes, and the final rites will be carried out at the cemetery by members of the Mt Beulah Spiritual Baptist Church. An autopsy on Wednesday revealed that death was due to multiple gunshot wounds. Sandy was shot twice in the head, once in the leg, and twice on both hands. His murder was the 83rd for the year. Ag Sgt Rommel James is investigating.