Tag: Mohan Ramcharan

When sovereignty becomes a doormat

THE EDITOR: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has declared that the US has an unquestionable right to act in its own best interests – even where those actions harm other sovereign states – and that affected countries must simply “accept the consequences.” That may sound tough. It is not law. And for a small state, it is an astonishingly reckless position to endorse.

Let us start with basics. Sovereignty does not mean “do as you please.” It never has. Since 1945, sovereignty has existed within a legal order precisely designed to restrain the strong and protect the weak. Every state’s freedom ends where another’s begins. The International Court of Justice has repeated this principle so often it is almost trite – including in cases involving the US itself.

Economic coercion, extraterritorial punishment, and policy intimidation are not expressions of sovereignty. They are violations of it. If powerful states were free to impose their preferences on others simply because they could, there would be no international law worth naming, only hierarchy.

The issue here is not whether the US may regulate its own borders. Of course it may. The issue is whether it may penalise other countries for lawful domestic policies it dislikes – such as citizenship-by-investment programmes that breach no treaty, no convention, and no rule of international law. That is not border control. It is interference, dressed up as security.

Caricom’s response was orthodox, restrained, and legally sound. It recognised US sovereignty while asking for consultation, clarity, and respect for the rule of law. That is exactly how small states are supposed to behave in a rules-based system. To dismiss this as weakness is to misunderstand how small states survive at all.

What makes this episode genuinely alarming is that it comes from a prime minister who styles herself a Senior Counsel – a title she conferred upon herself while in office. That fact alone should demand a higher standard of reasoning, not a lower one.

Instead, the thinking on display is profoundly defective. Sovereignty is misdescribed as an unlimited licence; coercion is rebranded as consequence; and international law is treated as optional etiquette. This is not a respectable disagreement about doctrine. It is a failure to grasp first principles. Such confusion would not pass muster in a competent undergraduate essay. From a self-appointed holder of silk, it is indefensible.

The irony is brutal. If the Prime Minister’s doctrine were correct – that powerful states may freely step on the toes of smaller ones in pursuit of their interests – then TT would have no protection at all. Under that logic, sanctions, blacklists, trade restrictions, and financial pressure would all be legitimate tools against us whenever we became inconvenient. Small states rely on law because power does not favour them.

Caricom is imperfect. Regional institutions always are. But undermining collective diplomacy while applauding unilateral power is not realism. It is abdication.

Sovereignty is not a doormat. And TT should stop pretending that being trampled is a sign of strength.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

via e-mail

Local common sense

THE EDITOR: Mohan Ramcharan’s response to my letter on the Privy Council cites his self-refuting propositions, not legal principles. My statements referenced are striking indeed, because they are so right; capturing succinctly the right understanding of the position, role and scope of the Privy Council and the nature of constitutional law. The Privy Council is meant to defend the Constitution, not substitute pieces of its own crafting for the Constitution or parts of it.

In the example of the TT Revenue Authority (TTRA), what the Privy Council should have held was that the BIR was part of a constitutional structuring that had to be repealed by a requisite majority, not a simple majority.

Instead, it upheld the TTRA passed by a simple majority; meaning that thereafter the Privy Council was now acting hand-in-glove with the executive to carry through changes to the Constitution by simple majorities and litigations. Which is not how the TT Constitution is constituted nor how laws of the land are made. And which is not the supremacy of Parliament nor the upholding of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Nor was it fair.

The same critical analysis is overdue for Pratt v Morgan; in fact, the Privy Council has had to moderate what it did there and that is not the function of the court but its pollution indeed and the pollution of the legal system in TT.

Ramcharan, who hails from the UK, is one of those who hold there is a kind of homogeneity that applies to all constitutions and ways are to be found to find out how they must get filtered into each jurisdiction. That, further, somehow because whatever that is, is “not theocratic,” it automatically has pass. But, again, this is not something in the TT Constitution.

According to the TT Constitution, a) the Privy Council and judiciary are not a branch of government matching parliamentary supremacy, and b) we have a sovereign republic both disaggregated from the Commonwealth and immune to the English monarch “king in council.”

What is true is that the UK has had a hard time letting go and is still grasping out; plus the Privy Council has demonstrated that it is not acting dispassionately. Recognising such things could never be “dangerous” or “tragic” or “uneducated” or “illiterate.” Or come again.

We found out in the covid19 so-called “pandemic” that the Public Health Act is outdated and totally inapt for purposes of modern medicine; and practically outmanoeuvred by science yet remaining oppressive in its delegations – in the extreme.

The only way to deal with this masked problem is to remake the law. Trying to affect the manifold problems coming through that act during a declared emergency, by necessary litigation to and ruling from the Privy Council “in the cause of rights,” would be multiplying disasters.

E GALY

via e-mail

Misrepresentation of Privy Council

THE EDITOR: E Galy’s recent letter on the Jason Jones case (“Privy Council going to pot?”) reveals a striking and dangerous misunderstanding of constitutional law and the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. His claim that “the court was not established to change the Constitution or laws already in there” blatantly misrepresents the very architecture of a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

First, the Privy Council, as the apex appellate court of TT, exists precisely to interpret and enforce the Constitution. Section 2 of the Constitution declares it the “supreme law of Trinidad and Tobago” and provides that any law inconsistent with it “shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

The courts, not Parliament, are the guardians of that supremacy. Parliament may make laws, but only the judiciary determines their validity. That is the essence of constitutional separation of powers. To suggest otherwise is to invite a sly, elected dictatorship. Cast your eye on the US where the courts have sided with the executive.

Second, the Jason Jones decision did not “change” the Constitution. It interpreted it, applying its express guarantees of equality, privacy, and protection of the person (sections 4 and 5). The court merely held that the colonial-era buggery and serious-indecency laws, insofar as they criminalised consensual adult acts in private, violated those fundamental rights. Far from “making law,” the court performed its constitutional duty to strike down legislation that contravened the supreme law, as mandated by section 14(1). This is the judicial function in its purest form.

Third, Galy’s assertion that “the court cannot make a law inoperable once it is within the frame of the Constitution” betrays ignorance of basic constitutional adjudication. The power of judicial review, confirmed since Marbury v Madison (1803) and followed throughout the Commonwealth, gives the court authority to invalidate statutes inconsistent with the Constitution.

The Privy Council, from Hinds v The Queen (1977) AC 195 to Boyce v The Queen (2004) UKPC 32, has repeatedly affirmed that it is not Parliament but the Constitution that is supreme. Judges do not “suspend” laws; they declare them void to the extent of their inconsistency, a declaratory function intrinsic to constitutional supremacy.

Fourth, to say that invoking “changed times” or “new eras” is “not a formula in the Constitution” misses the point entirely. The Constitution is a living instrument, not a museum piece. This principle, reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Reyes v The Queen (2002) UKPC 11 and Matthew v The State (2004) UKPC 33, recognises that fundamental-rights provisions must be interpreted generously and purposively to reflect evolving standards of dignity and equality. That interpretative approach ensures that the Constitution protects living people, not dead ideas.

What Galy presents, therefore, is not constitutional reasoning but theocratic posturing masquerading as legal argument. His entire position stems from an assumption that religious morality should dictate constitutional interpretation, an assumption wholly incompatible with the secular rule of law established by the 1976 Constitution.

In TT, sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution, not with the pulpit. The judiciary’s duty is to uphold fundamental rights, not enforce scripture. When religious dogma seeks to displace constitutional supremacy, it ceases to be faith and becomes political extremism.

Finally, the claim that the judiciary’s action “mutates” civil and criminal law is legally absurd. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it ceases to have effect
ab initio (from the beginning) to the extent of the inconsistency, ensuring the coherence, not mutation, of the legal system. The judiciary thus preserves constitutional order; it does not subvert it.

In short, Galy’s argument is an affront to constitutional literacy. The Privy Council did not overreach; it fulfilled its solemn duty to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the inviolable rights of citizens. That is not judicial activism, it is judicial adherence to the rule of law.

The tragedy is not that the Privy Council acted beyond its remit, but that public discourse continues to be polluted by those who mistake constitutional review for political interference. It is the mark of an uneducated mind to see judicial independence as rebellion.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

Birmingham, UK

Who’s paying Roger Alexander’s legal bills?

THE EDITOR: The recent clash between Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander and prison supervisor Garth Guada raises a question bigger than the personal reputations of either man: who is footing the bill for Alexander’s high-powered legal defence?

Alexander’s legal team, led by senior counsel Anand Ramlogan, has denied allegations that he improperly met with gang leaders while serving as a police officer. They have also rejected claims that his actions were motivated by vendettas or bias. These are serious allegations, but they mostly concern Alexander’s conduct before he entered politics, while he was still in the TT Police Service.

Why this matters

When a sitting minister hires some of the most expensive lawyers in the country, the public has a right to ask: is this coming out of his pocket, his political party’s pocket, or ours?

• If he is paying personally – fair enough. A minister, like anyone else, has the right to defend his reputation.

• If his political party or donors are paying – that raises questions of political influence, but at least taxpayers are not carrying the cost.

• If the state is paying – that is deeply problematic. Taxpayer money should never be used to defend allegations of personal misconduct that occurred before someone entered government.

The principle at stake

Public funds can be used to defend ministers only if:

• The allegations arise directly from the lawful exercise of official ministerial duties;

• The defence is necessary to protect the integrity of the office itself; and

• The alleged acts were within the scope of authority.

That is clearly not the case here. Meetings with gang figures, alleged misuse of police intelligence, or personal vendettas are not “ministerial duties.”

A risk of abuse

If it turns out that Alexander’s legal bills are being covered by the government, that would amount to an improper use of public money. It would:

• Divert funds from public service to defend private reputation;

• Create a conflict of interest, since Alexander is now part of the government that would be funding him;

• Undermine accountability, shielding ministers from the consequences of their personal actions.

The public deserves clarity

The question is simple: Who is paying? Until Alexander or the government answers, suspicion will remain. If taxpayers are footing the bill, the matter goes beyond politics — it becomes an issue of legality, accountability, and the misuse of public funds.

Alexander is entitled to a legal defence. What he is not entitled to is a taxpayer-funded shield for personal actions taken before he became a minister. The public deserves transparency. Anything less is an abuse of trust.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

via e-mail

Guevarro must speak with courage

THE EDITOR: It is with grave concern that I respond to the recent remarks made by Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro at his inaugural press conference, regarding the internal investigation into Deputy Commissioner of Police Suzette Martin.

Let us be clear, the commissioner’s statement is riddled with evasive, non-committal language that projects neither confidence nor integrity. His repeated assurances of “transparency” are undermined by a calculated vagueness, strategic ambiguity, and what can only be described as rhetorical abdication of responsibility. This is not transparency. It is obfuscation masquerading as accountability.

On his first day in office, Guevarro received a serious allegation from firearms dealer Brent Thomas – who is at the centre of a legal controversy implicating the police service in potentially unlawful cross-border actions.

Yet, rather than address this matter with clarity, urgency, or moral leadership, the commissioner chose to engage in institutional hedging. He repeatedly distanced himself from the situation, insisting that disciplinary action “lies solely with the Police Service Commission” (PSC) under section 123 of the Constitution.

That is legally correct. But legally correct is not good enough. A commissioner of police must not be reduced to a memo courier. Leadership demands more than administrative compliance; it demands moral clarity and the willingness to act. He had a duty to publicly affirm his expectations of integrity, signal the seriousness of the allegations, and recommend that the deputy commissioner be placed on leave pending the investigation. Instead, the commissioner washed his hands in the style of Pontius Pilate, affirming only that his hands are “clean.”

More troubling still is the language used to describe the allegation itself. Guevarro said that “certain acts were carried out” against Thomas, who “felt it was bordering on criminal conduct.” That language is disturbingly euphemistic. It reframes a potentially criminal abuse of police power as a matter of subjective perception. It trivialises the issue and casts doubt upon the complainant while shielding the institution from reputational damage.

This is precisely the kind of rhetorical framing that erodes public trust. The people of TT deserve better. We are not asking for prejudgement. We are asking for candour. If the allegations are serious enough to involve a deputy commissioner and require a dedicated investigative team led by an assistant commissioner, then they are serious enough for the public to be told the nature of the complaint. Transparency is not a slogan; it is a practice. One does not become transparent simply by saying “we are transparent.”

Moreover, the commissioner failed to provide any timeline for the investigation or any indication of how progress will be reported. This allows the TTPS to fall into the familiar pattern of “active investigations” that never reach conclusion. Public accountability demands procedural clarity and time-bound commitments.

Guevarro speaks of a “social contract” between the police and the public. But a contract implies mutual obligation. The public cannot uphold its end – support and co-operation – if the police leadership cannot uphold theirs – truthfulness and moral courage. Rebuilding trust in a damaged institution requires forthrightness, not legalistic retreat.

I urge the commissioner to reflect carefully on his language. A nation will not be reassured by rhetorical opacity. The office he holds is not simply administrative – it is symbolic. Every word he utters sets the tone for the culture of the entire force. At a time of institutional crisis, the people of TT do not need a spokesperson for the system. We need a leader.

By the way, if he is in doubt, I can provide a forensic breakdown of his weasel words.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

Birmingham, England

Prioritise funding for health, judicial sectors

THE EDITOR: Argument for increased funding for the health service and judiciary in TT.

1. Current challenges faced by health service

The public health service in TT is under significant pressure, facing issues such as outdated facilities, limited access to essential medications, and long waiting times for medical services. Chronic underfunding exacerbates these problems, resulting in suboptimal patient care and higher rates of preventable illnesses.

Investing in healthcare improves public health outcomes, reduces the incidence of chronic diseases, and leads to a more productive workforce. A study by the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted that investments in healthcare yield a return through enhanced economic productivity and reduced future medical costs (2022).

Negative impact of underfunding: A reduction in funding has led to strained resources and demoralised healthcare professionals, which in turn impacts patient care quality (Ministry of Health, 2023). The lack of investment in critical infrastructure and technological advancements also hinders the healthcare system’s ability to respond effectively to pandemics and other health crises (Global Health Security Index, 2021).

2. Importance of judiciary funding

The judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding citizens’ rights. However, persistent budget cuts have strained the justice system, resulting in:

* Lengthy delays in case hearings.

* Backlogged cases, particularly in criminal courts.

* Limited access to legal aid for vulnerable individuals.

Impacts on society: Delays in the judicial process undermine public confidence in the justice system and can contribute to societal instability. Studies show that prolonged case backlogs can lead to higher rates of crime as individuals perceive a reduced risk of accountability (UNODC, 2021). Furthermore, limited resources can impact judicial training and modernisation efforts, which are essential for the effective implementation of justice (Judiciary, 2023).

3. Public and economic benefits of increased funding

Investing in both health and judicial services can create a virtuous cycle benefiting society and the economy:

Health service investments: Improved funding for health services can reduce healthcare costs in the long run by preventing the progression of chronic diseases and reducing emergency care reliance. The economic argument is supported by studies that demonstrate every dollar spent on healthcare returns a significant proportion through a healthier, more active population (WHO, 2022).

Judiciary funding: Enhancing the judiciary’s budget can lead to faster processing of cases, reducing pre-trial detention rates and the associated costs to the state. A transparent and efficient legal system fosters trust among citizens and investors, crucial for economic growth (Transparency International, 2023).

Lessons from international comparisons: Countries with consistent investment in these sectors, such as the UK and Norway, report better health outcomes and lower crime rates. TT’s healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP lags behind that of many developed nations, emphasising the need for increased funding (World Bank, 2023).

4. Consequences of repeated budget cuts

Repeated budget cuts to the health and judicial sectors have had negative repercussions:

Healthcare: Reports indicate a decline in the quality of healthcare services due to staff shortages and inadequate equipment (Ministry of Health, 2023). This situation has worsened public trust and increased pressure on private healthcare, which is unaffordable for many.

Judiciary: Insufficient funding has led to poor case management systems and delays that exacerbate already significant legal backlogs. Public opinion surveys show that citizens are losing confidence in the judiciary’s ability to administer timely justice (Judiciary, 2023).

5. Conclusion

Enhanced funding for the health service and judiciary is essential for TT’s social and economic stability. Improved investment can address current deficiencies, reduce long-term public costs, and build a healthier and more secure society. The government must recognise that repeated underfunding weakens these vital sectors, undermining public trust and economic growth.

These points and references emphasise the need for prioritising funding for the health and judicial sectors, highlighting the economic and social gains that accompany such investments.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

Birmingham, England

The false hope of prayer

THE EDITOR: The new head of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) is calling for daily prayer in TT. This is a repeat of endless similar calls. We have had calls for prayer to deal with crime and every other problem under the sun.

Sadly, prayer has never worked and will continue to be a false solace to the weak-minded.

Here’s an argument that questions the efficacy of prayer:

The illusion of efficacy:

Examining prayer as false hope

1. Lack of empirical evidence

* Despite centuries of religious practice, there is no conclusive empirical evidence demonstrating that prayer consistently leads to tangible outcomes.

* Scientific studies on intercessory prayer (praying for others) have yielded mixed results, with some showing no significant impact on health outcomes.

* The absence of consistent evidence raises doubts about the effectiveness of prayer as a reliable solution.

2. Randomness and confirmation bias

* When people pray for specific outcomes (such as healing from illness) they often attribute positive results to prayer while ignoring negative outcomes.

* Confirmation bias leads individuals to remember instances where prayer seemed effective and forget those where it had no impact.

* Random events can be mistakenly attributed to prayer, reinforcing the illusion of efficacy.

3. Natural processes vs divine intervention

* Many positive outcomes attributed to prayer can be explained by natural processes, medical treatments, or statistical probabilities.

* For example, a person recovering from an illness may credit prayer, but it could be due to medical treatment, the body’s immune response, or chance.

* The boundary between divine intervention and natural causality remains blurred.

4. Selective memory and survivorship bias

* People tend to remember instances when prayer seemingly worked (eg, surviving a dangerous situation), but forget cases where it didn’t.

* Survivorship bias occurs when we focus on the survivors (those who prayed and had positive outcomes) and overlook those who prayed and didn’t experience the same results.

5. Psychological comfort and coping mechanism

* Prayer provides psychological comfort, reducing anxiety and stress.

* However, this comfort doesn’t necessarily translate into objective outcomes.

* The placebo effect may contribute to the perception of prayer’s efficacy.

6. Alternative explanations for positive outcomes

* Positive outcomes attributed to prayer might result from factors like hope, community support, or the placebo effect.

* These factors can exist independently of prayer and don’t necessarily validate its efficacy.

In summary, while prayer offers emotional solace and a sense of connection, its effectiveness in producing specific outcomes remains unproven. The power of prayer may be more about human psychology and social support than supernatural intervention.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

Birmingham, England

Crime, poverty connection

THE EDITOR: I was bemused at Fitzgerald Hinds’s publicly expressed opinion that pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime. Granted, in the same vein that he expressed this opinion, he also stated that “I am no sociologist, I am no criminologist, but I am almost certain that they are.”

I thought such outdated thinking was debunked many moons ago, but here comes our National Security Minister, arguing from authority and emotional thinking, simultaneously making two well-known critical thinking errors in one statement.

To quote from the article, “Responding to Hosein’s comments, Hinds expressed doubt about crime being linked to poverty and unemployment. The jury for me is out on that.”

He seems to have been asleep before, during and after the jury delivered on the social determinants of crime.

Might I suggest to the goodly minister that he investigates and makes ample use of ChatGPT, a well-known open-source artificial intelligence (AI) which provides answers more rooted in reality. ChatGPT, when asked what are the main social determinants of crime, gave this answer:

Social determinants of crime are complex and interconnected factors that influence the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour. These factors are rooted in social, economic and environmental conditions. Some of the main social determinants of crime include:

1. Poverty: Poverty can lead to feelings of desperation, frustration and hopelessness, which can contribute to criminal activity as people search for ways to meet their basic needs or escape their circumstances.

2. Education: Lower levels of education are associated with a higher likelihood of criminal involvement. Lack of education can limit job opportunities and social mobility, leading to increased vulnerability to criminal activities.

3. Family structure: Dysfunctional or unstable family environments can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour and delinquency, especially when there is a lack of proper supervision, positive role models, or emotional support.

4. Peer influence: The influence of peers, particularly those involved in criminal activities, can increase the likelihood of an individual participating in crime. Peer pressure and the desire to fit in or gain social status can contribute to criminal behaviour.

5. Unemployment: High unemployment rates can lead to financial insecurity, social dislocation, and frustration, all of which can contribute to criminal behaviour.

6. Social disorganisation: Communities with high levels of social disorganisation, such as those characterised by residential instability, weak social networks, and limited community resources, often experience higher crime rates.

7. Substance abuse: Alcohol and drug abuse can impair judgment, exacerbate existing mental health issues, and contribute to criminal behaviour, both directly (eg, drug-related offences) and indirectly (eg, property crimes to support a drug habit).

8. Inequality and social exclusion: Significant income disparities and social exclusion can lead to feelings of resentment, marginalisation and anger, which may contribute to criminal behaviour.

9. Cultural factors: Cultural values and norms that condone or even encourage criminal behaviour can contribute to crime. For example, some subcultures may view certain criminal acts as acceptable or even prestigious.

10. Mental health: Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or personality disorders, can increase the risk of criminal behaviour, particularly when left untreated or combined with other risk factors.

ChatGPT added: “It is important to note that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and multiple determinants may interact to influence an individual’s likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour. Addressing these social determinants is critical to reducing crime rates and promoting public safety.”

When asked how strongly is poverty associated with crime levels and give some good references, ChatGPT even provided references for the link between crime and poverty:

“The association between poverty and crime levels is well established, though the strength of the relationship can vary depending on various factors, including location, type of crime, and the specific measures used to assess poverty. Research indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly property and violent crimes.”

Hinds seems out of his depth in thinking at a higher level beyond the Nicki Minaj approach to serious issues. I can only hold my head in despair at what further depths the country’s crime situation will plummet over the next few years.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

via e-mail

More guns a recipe for disaster

THE EDITOR: I am astounded that Dr Varma Deyalsingh, and others, are calling on the Government to arm citizens. What a colossally foolish idea.

Evidence shows – and any simple comparison between countries with higher access to guns and those without easy access – that countries such as the US, where citizens are easily armed, have higher gun-related crimes and deaths than those countries without access to arms.

Factually, the incidents with the highest death tolls in the US are committed by white homegrown terrorists with access to guns.

While typing this I am reading about an incident in the US where two drivers shot each other’s daughters – ages five and 14 – not each other. Had they been unarmed this would have never happened. Incidentally, they are both white Americans.

TT citizens are prone to the same human weaknesses that affect us all. Hence, allowing access to guns is another link in a chain to anarchy. Resorting to using a gun over petty squabbles will soon be a norm.

Just looked at what happened in the case of an off-duty police officer who shot a man over a parking space.

Frankly, it will serve the country better to have a more effective, intelligence-driven and better trained police service.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN

England