The issue of recusals by Cabinet ministers

LOUIS W WILLIAMS

I TOLD a friend recently that TT is fast becoming the propaganda capital of the world.

Why on earth is the question of the recusals of Cabinet ministers Stuart Young and Faris Al-Rawi evoking so much comment, interest and attention? On this matter, both gentlemen have behaved honourably, in accordance with the law, and in keeping with the best traditions of the Westminster system of government.

In Young's case, some have opined that he went beyond the call of duty and recused himself from even matters in which the bank that his brother worked for was invited to tender and chose not to do so. This might not have been necessary according to law. But I agree with his stance that strict adherence to high moral and ethical standards demanded that such action be taken.

The law is an imperfect instrument and, therefore, cannot always cater for every possible situation that might arise. Good governance demands that high office holders will not seek to exploit imperfections in the law/legal loopholes for their personal benefit.

My support for what may be seen by some as unnecessary recusals would be better understood when one considers that if Young had participated in the decision-making by Cabinet on such matters, a rival financial institution to the one that Young's brother worked for could claim that the minister had deliberately influenced his Cabinet colleagues to not award the contract to it, in order to sabotage its business operations and, thereby, weaken its viability within the financial sector.

On the more general issue of recusal, my understanding, based on what former senior public officers have stated, is that one matter might be considered by Cabinet on several occasions, given, among other things, that such matters are often enough referred to sub-committees of Cabinet before a final decision is taken. However, each time the matter is considered by Cabinet a recusal is recorded.

Notwithstanding what I have stated at the outset, I am glad that this matter has been raised in the public domain.

In this regard, Cabinet ministers are not your average Joe from Beetham Gardens or, alternatively, some squatter community. They are politicians, nearly all of whom, if not all, have relatives and friends who are involved in business operations.

Many such relatives and friends work at senior levels in private sector enterprises. Moreover, the State is very dominant in our economy and many of these private sector enterprises depend on government contracts for the viability of a substantial part of their operations.

The situation is even worse in the case of lawyers in the Cabinet. I have been told that some large law firms/law chambers, depending on the workload, contract out some of the more mundane aspects of their briefs to junior lawyers in private practice.

However, these junior lawyers do not get credit for the work done in the background, by way of any official/public record, but they are familiar with the cases and clients, although they might have never met with the clients. If such lawyers later become Cabinet ministers, in my view they ought to recuse themselves in any matter involving such clients of the law firm that provided them with work.

I have heard it said that people who have to recuse themselves as often as Al-Rawi and Young ought not to be in the Cabinet. Consistent with this view, it is argued that those people who have relatives and friends that do a certain amount of business with the Government ought not to be in the Cabinet. That viewpoint is clearly discriminatory and absurd.

What next? Are we going to ban Indo-Trinidadians/Tobagonians from accepting Cabinet positions because, culturally, they have tended to "go into business" rather than seek employment in the public service?

Proponents of such an absurdity could claim that, given the small size of our population, a ban was necessary as it would be near impossible to find a prospective Indo-Trinidadian/Tobagonian Cabinet minister who did not have relatives and friends doing business with the Government on a regular basis.

Unlike Young's detractors, given what I have stated above about the small size of our population and the pool of people from which Cabinet ministers are drawn, I am surprised that there have been so few recusals by Cabinet ministers in the last 30 years, given the thousands of Cabinet Notes that were considered during that time. I suppose that stranger things have happened.

Instinctively, logic tells me that all is not well and has not been so for quite a while. The big question is how do we fix it?