分类： politics

Former Trinidad and Tobago Police Commissioner Gary Griffith has called for national unity and preparedness in light of the escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela. In a video message shared via WhatsApp on October 28, Griffith emphasized the need to move beyond political divisions and focus on the potential fallout from the geopolitical standoff. He warned that the public discourse had devolved into political bickering, urging citizens and the government to prioritize readiness over blame or propaganda. Griffith, who also served as national security minister and is a retired military officer, highlighted the direct implications for Trinidad and Tobago, including possible security threats and a surge in Venezuelan migrants if the situation deteriorates. He advocated for the Ministry of Defence to play a more proactive role in national preparedness, referencing a framework he developed in 2010 for such scenarios. Griffith proposed the formation of an advisory committee comprising retired senior military officers to guide the government’s response. He named several former defense leaders, including retired generals John Sandy, Carl Alfonso, Ancil Antoine, and Edmund Dillon, as valuable contributors. Additionally, Griffith called for immediate recruitment drives for the Defence Force, particularly the Coast Guard, and stressed the importance of mental and operational readiness among personnel. He emphasized the need for maintaining military assets and utilizing the National Operations Centre (NOC) to ensure coordination among security agencies and combat misinformation. Griffith warned that a regional conflict could trigger a mass exodus of Venezuelans, overwhelming Trinidad and Tobago’s health, education, and security systems. He also condemned attempts to show allegiance to foreign powers, particularly Venezuela’s accusation that Trinidad and Tobago harbors terrorists, which he labeled as a threat to national sovereignty. Griffith concluded by urging unity, preparation, and strong leadership, stating, ‘When the storm comes, TT must stand ready together.’

In a recent letter to the editor, E Galy’s critique of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s role in the Jason Jones case demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of constitutional law and the judiciary’s function in a democratic society. Galy’s assertion that the Privy Council overstepped its bounds by altering the Constitution is not only incorrect but also dangerously misleading. This rebuttal seeks to clarify the constitutional principles at play and reaffirm the judiciary’s vital role in safeguarding the rule of law.

First and foremost, the Privy Council, as the highest appellate court for Trinidad and Tobago (TT), is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly designates it as the ‘supreme law of the land,’ rendering any inconsistent legislation void. The judiciary, not Parliament, is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional validity. This separation of powers is foundational to preventing elected dictatorship and ensuring democratic governance.

Second, the Jason Jones decision did not ‘change’ the Constitution but rather interpreted it in light of its guarantees of equality, privacy, and personal protection (sections 4 and 5). The court ruled that colonial-era laws criminalizing consensual adult acts in private violated these fundamental rights. This was not judicial activism but the fulfillment of the court’s constitutional duty to strike down laws that contravene the supreme law, as mandated by section 14(1).

Third, Galy’s claim that the court cannot render a law inoperable if it aligns with the Constitution is a fundamental misrepresentation of judicial review. Established in cases like Marbury v Madison (1803) and reaffirmed in Commonwealth jurisprudence, judicial review empowers courts to invalidate statutes inconsistent with the Constitution. This principle ensures that constitutional supremacy is upheld.

Fourth, Galy’s dismissal of ‘changed times’ as irrelevant to constitutional interpretation is misguided. The Constitution is a living document, as affirmed by the Privy Council in cases like Reyes v The Queen (2002) and Matthew v The State (2004). It must be interpreted in a manner that reflects evolving societal standards of dignity and equality.

Galy’s argument, rooted in theocratic posturing rather than constitutional reasoning, conflates religious morality with legal interpretation. This stance is incompatible with the secular rule of law enshrined in TT’s 1976 Constitution. Sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution, not with religious dogma.

Finally, the assertion that judicial review ‘mutates’ civil and criminal law is legally untenable. When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is void ab initio, ensuring the coherence of the legal system. The judiciary’s role is to preserve constitutional order, not to subvert it.

In conclusion, the Privy Council’s decision in the Jason Jones case was a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial duty. Public discourse must rise above misconceptions that equate judicial independence with political interference. The true tragedy lies in the persistence of such uninformed critiques in our public dialogue.

MOHAN RAMCHARAN
Birmingham, UK

In a recent letter to the editor, C Peters reflects on the complexities of governing Trinidad and Tobago (TT), drawing inspiration from former Prime Minister Patrick Manning. The letter emphasizes the challenges of leadership and the often-overlooked potential of the nation. Peters notes that while imperfections are inevitable, the pursuit of progress requires hard work and resilience. The writer highlights the democratic exercise of voting for change on April 28, a decision driven by the belief in a new direction. However, Peters observes a paradox: some citizens expect consistency while desiring different outcomes. The letter underscores that meaningful transformation is a gradual process, fraught with trial and error. Quoting Greek philosopher Heraclitus, Peters reminds readers that change is inherent and inevitable, urging patience and perseverance in the nation’s journey toward progress.

Venezuelan activist Yesenia González has voiced her strong support for US intervention in Venezuela, asserting that it is essential to end Nicolás Maduro’s rule and restore justice to the Venezuelan people. Speaking to a Newsday reporter at her office in Port of Spain on October 29, González expressed unwavering confidence that democracy would soon prevail in Venezuela. She criticized Maduro’s administration as a dictatorship, accusing him of severe human rights violations, suppression of free speech, and electoral fraud in the July 28 presidential election. González emphasized that Maduro’s presidency is illegitimate and called for the closure of the Venezuelan Embassy in Trinidad, describing it as an illegal entity. She also condemned Opposition Leader Penelope Beckles for hosting Venezuela’s ambassador, Álvaro Enrique Sánchez Corderoon, labeling it as inappropriate. González believes that US intervention will pave the way for new leadership in Venezuela, led by Edmundo González Urrutia and opposition leader María Corina Machado. She dismissed the National Assembly of Venezuela’s declaration of Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar as persona non grata, calling it a meaningless act by Maduro’s allies. González also addressed the issue of illegal immigration in Trinidad, urging the government to engage in dialogue rather than deporting migrants, whom she described as valuable contributors to the economy. She warned of potential violent uprisings by Maduro’s supporters in Trinidad and called for vigilance against criminal groups like Tren de Aragua. González concluded with a message of hope, urging Venezuelans to stay strong and Trinidadians to remain calm, expressing her belief that Maduro’s rule is nearing its end.