14 October 1999, 806 words
I don't know why so many people are so fearful about the independence of the judiciary. It's not as if the Chief Justice and the institution he heads are being attacked by hooligans or brigands or drug lords. That's the crucial point everyone seems to have missed.
Consider the man who is leading this purported broadside on the judiciary. Mr. Karl Hudson-Phillips has a hyphen in his last name. The citizenry can therefore rest assured that this is a respectable man. But it is not only his name, but his record that speaks for itself. Mr. Hudson-Phillips is most famous for drawing up the Public Order Bill. The very title speaks volumes. Obviously, this is a man deeply concerned about public order. Therefore, any criticism he makes about the judiciary must have been made in the interest of public order. But you know how Trinis don't like to be orderly.
And what about the man who was the chief target of Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide's address? I refer, of course, to Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. Here is a man who has three names. While not as good a guarantee as a hyphen, any objective person would readily admit that no unrespectable person uses three names (save assassins like Lee Harvey Oswald, but that's only in the United States). There can be no doubt that, if Mr. Maharaj is trying to erode the independence of the judiciary, it's because there's a crying need for erosion. And no one has ever accused Mr. Maharaj of being unwilling to get dirty.
Remember, this is a man who once headed a Human Rights Bureau but as Attorney General oversaw the hanging of nine men in one weekend. When he was a Human Rights Bureau head, he argued that the death penalty was biased against the poor, that an innocent person could be executed since the system could never be perfect, and that the death penalty didn't reduce crime. But when he became Attorney General, he said the death penalty wasn't a human rights issue, and forgot all his previous arguments. Me, I could never be that dutiful and, dear reader, I bet neither could you. Also bear in mind that Mr. Maharaj has been visiting mandir, mosque and church over the past few moths and, just recently, went to see Sai Baba. Obviously, no right-thinking citizen need worry about the motives and intentions of a man who talks so regularly to God's representatives here on Earth.
But it is not only the character, reputation and record of these principals which should put our minds at ease. We must also consider the calibre of citizens who have come out in support of Mr. Hudson-Phillips and Mr. Maharaj and against de la Bastide. Foremost among them have been true Indians Kamal Persad, Rajnie Ramlakhan and Devant Parsuram Maharaj. Even Anil Mahabir felt moved to attack the CJ. These persons are all affiliated to the Maha Sabha, a respectable Hindu organization. True, a large number of people perceive these persons as fanatics, bigots and bottle-pelters. But that is only because the average Trinidadian doesn't treat serious things seriously.
The Maha Sabha activists, however, are very serious people. Persad once suggested that Indians in the Caribbean should resort to "militant" solutions if subjected to racism. Devant Maharaj has warned about the attempted "genocide" of Trinidadian Hindus. Sat Maharaj even rewrote the Bhagavadgita, removing the principle of non-violence from it in order to fight religious prejudice from Christians. Obviously, these are people who are very concerned about national issues, and if they are supporting Karl and Ramesh, they must have good reasons for doing so.
And what about the man who has been the target of all these attacks? What about Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide? He has no hyphen, and two of the words in his surname are merely a preposition and an article. His public record is nothing like Karl's and Ramesh's. He's not even half as rich as them. Moreover, even those people who have been supporting him have been forced to admit that his character is less than perfect. For the Chief Justice is well known to be a tactless fellow! Yes, I'm afraid so. That's the kind of person we have heading our judiciary.
Yet perhaps that in itself provides a solution to this present imbroglio. For, if the Government passed a law making a lack of tact a crime, not only could they then lock up the CJ, but pesky newspaper columnists like Denis Solomon, Raffique Shah, B.C. Pires, Donna Yawching, Vernon Ramesar, Ramjohn Ali and me. After that, they could appoint a new CJ - someone known to oppose de la Bastide, but more respectable than him, like a former candidate for the Presidency maybe?
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh