Questioning constitutional govt

THE EDITOR: I wish to congratulate The Prime Minister Dr Rowley for swiftly seeking to clear his name through court action.

Unquestionably, Dr Moonilal’s revelations were staggering. Like "bare Jack," he could be hanged by the "Queen" if they’re left hanging.

I imagine the court will respond by upholding the well-set constitutional guarantees of human dignity. More precisely, I expect the judge will decide that our laws are crafted to level the playing field by dismissing the culture and practice of untouchability. And that freedom of thought and expression is the two-pronged foundation of our very existence.

Since 1956, to wow the crowds, all serious political parties have routinely anchored their platforms on the need for open government. Openness means answerable to inquiry –even of the facetious. Since 1956, those who ask public officials for explanations remain unimpressed that meaningful action has ever been taken to encourage inquiry, especially when it appears the people’s business is being conducted with dog-in-the-manger impunity.

The lead-footed insist only what benefits one cluster shall prevail. The buoyant view apartheid as an invitation for future redemption. Both are unyielding, beyond reasonable doubt.

So, I expect the court to rule that the rules must change, or be implemented forcefully, regarding inquiries about public office oddities. And responses.

I hold on to that hope because, without question, court officials are very selfish concerning what they can do to reset standards and trajectory; and not selfish at all about what they cannot do.

Richard Wm Thomas, Arouca