 |
| You don’t have to be a rocket scientist: Prime Minister Patrick Manning during his news conference at his St Clair office yesterday. -Photo: MICHEAL BRUCE |
Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s last statement to journalists yesterday was ominous.
Told that the public believed former minister Dr Keith Rowley was on the way to total exoneration, Manning was unyielding.
’Well, if that is the view of the public, that is the public’s view. Let’s see. I have said before. One has to await the evening in order to determine how splendid the day has been. It is not evening yet. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen,’ he said, bringing an end to the news conference.
Rowley was allegedly fired for ’wajang’ behaviour in the wake of his concerns about bid-rigging and lack of Cabinet oversight over the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (UDeCOTT).
Before this statement, Manning had addressed the issue of why, in the face of allegations, action was not taken earlier against former UDeCOTT executive chairman Calder Hart, the man who many felt was responsible for Rowley’s dismissal from the Cabinet.
’I would like somebody to tell me of what is Mr (Calder) Hart guilty? Would somebody be kind enough to tell me? I would like to know, right now!’ the prime minister said, attempting to turn the tables on journalists.
The prime minister had made it clear he is not jumping the gun. He also stressed his office was not charged with the responsibility of investigating anything, and he would await the results of the investigations by the competent State agencies. And he gave the assurance he will let the chips fall were they may when the criminal investigations are over.
This position emerged as an unusually tense prime minister fielded questions from the media on the Calder Hart issue at his St Clair office. Manning was not always forthcoming, and he avoided questions on why, two years after Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj first raised allegations about Hart’s family relationship with the shareholders and directors of CH Development, it took a private group of individuals (the Congress of the People), not the Government, to discover critical documentary evidence.
He seemed to agree with Planning Minister Dr Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde that Hart was ’hounded’ in the media.
’You don’t have to be a rocket scientist… When I read the papers sometimes, I wonder what is the crime?’ he asked.
Asked whether he believed the country should be ashamed, Manning said: ’Ashamed of what? Suppose when he (Hart) has his day in court, he clears his name. What would you say then?’
Asked again whether then he agreed with the views of his Planning Minister (that the country should be ashamed), Manning said: ’The Planning Minister expressed her point of view. It is her right.’
And his views?
’When I think it necessary to make that public, I will do so. I am not commenting on the statements of an honourable minister of my Cabinet.’
Manning claimed he never defended Hart in the past, but he merely was pointing out his ’contribution’.
’What was my defence of Mr Hart? What I was, in fact, doing was acknowledging the contribution of Mr Hart in terms of national development…when I spoke at the (opening of the) Academy for Performing Arts at the Waterfront… It was on occasions like those that I took the opportunity, just to advise the national community of the contribution of UDeCOTT, headed by Mr Hart, and the fact that we were able to build all these projects on time and within budget, which is a rarity in the construction sector,’ he noted.
The prime minister, who said he was aware that the attorney general was probing Hart, said investigations by the attorney general were ’routine things’. He said he was investigated in the past-when his wife was appointed to the Cabinet. He said he was investigated by the Integrity Commission at least five times.
The prime minister said it would be a major error for a government to take the position that someone is guilty, notwithstanding the fact that it is not proven by the authorities.
’As of now, Mr Hart is guilty of nothing. There have been a lot of allegations in the public domain… It would have been absolutely wrong for the prime minister to have behaved in a manner to suggest that Mr Hart was guilty or otherwise. The determination of guilt or innocence is not a matter for the prime minister. It is a matter for the established authorities,’ Manning said.
Manning was reminded that he had criticised the ’lynch mob’ attitude towards Hart and had referred to Carl Khan’s testimony as the word of a ’jilted lover’. He said he stood by his statements. He said there was an attitude that ’you merely have to stigmatise somebody, deem them guilty and then Government has to act’. He noted he was being urged to act against Hart even before the Commission of Enquiry had reported.
’It is like a murder case…and before the jury is able to come to its conclusion, the judge says, ’I will dismiss the jury and I find you guilty’.’
Manning also made it a point, over and over again, that the content of his conversation with Calder Hart on Saturday, hours before Hart resigned, was private.
’Why is it necessary for me to go into the details of my conversations with Mr Hart?’ Manning asked.
’The fact is that the attorney general advised the prime minister of certain things, the prime minister in that context had a discussion with Mr Hart and following that, Mr Hart felt that in all the circumstances, the best thing to do was to resign. What does it matter whether he did it voluntarily or whether the prime minister told him to do it? …The fact is that he has resigned. I am sorry… the details of the discussions between the prime minister and Mr Hart would not be disclosed,’ the prime minister said.
Asked whether former ministers Franklin Khan (who resigned as soon as allegations against him became public) and Eric Williams were treated differently from Hart, who, held on to his job two years after allegations first surfaced, Manning said the circumstances were not the same.
’It was the nature of the allegations and the fact that there was a clear case to be answered by those gentlemen. It was when a case appeared to be answerable by Mr Hart that action was taken,’ he said, adding Government wanted to avoid being part of the lynch mob.
He recalled the false allegations made against him that he had sold his car to a drug dealer (Dole Chadee).
’An allegation was made, Mr Hart denied it. On what basis was the prime minister supposed to act?’
Asked whether he was embarrassed that given the seriousness of the allegations, Government did not feel it incumbent to act, and left it instead up to a private organisation (the COP) to get the crucial evidence, Manning said the attorney general had already dealt with that matter.
’There is a thing called fairness and equity, and everybody knows the position of the prime minister-that I can defend you on ABC but when it comes to integrity, I can defend no one,’ Manning stated.
’We investigate all allegations that border on prejudicing the integrity of individuals…and Mr Hart is no different,’ the PM added.
Asked whether he still had faith in Mr Hart, Manning said: ’Of what relevance is that? I have faith in God.’
Manning announced that former United National Congress (UNC) minister and current Housing Development Corporation (HDC) CEO Jearlean John would replace Hart, not as an executive chairman but merely as a chairman. Asked whether John would be given the same ’carte blanche’ authority that Hart had, Manning said nobody has ’carte blanche’ authority since all chairmen report to their line ministers and the Finance Minister, who is the corporation sole.
Manning, who said he did not know Hart was leaving the country, urged the media and the population not to be ’judge and jury, especially when ’I am sure we don’t have all sides of the story. Let the law take its course’.
Asked whether Hart deceived him, Manning said it was only after the matter is determined that he can come to a conclusion on that. (Trinidad Express) |
