BUT seriously, legal sense is not common sense.

We are only seeing a display of arrogance and ignorance, not level-head and common sense.

For the last few weeks, I have been writing this article with daily changes.

For every day, some people will open their mouth and make a fool of both their portfolio and themselves.

To date, no female has been involved.

And no one has made any pathway, without being tainted by politics and race.

It is a known fact that the top officials of this country, namely the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, cannot be removed from office with the simple process of a criminal warrant or any warrant for this matter.

There has to be a process, similar to that of President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky issue.

This process is well known as evident by a process that was mentioned in April, 2005 but was stopped by an application for judicial review.

The stance by a top police official to act alone and independently and to issue an arrest warrant is in itself not only comical but a dangerous precedent.

He did say that he acted alone and did not inform anyone.

Other officials denied prior knowledge of his actions.

Like macaroni, you can act from high ground that is dry, thus remaining hard and straight.

But when macaroni is in hot water, it will turn soft and bend.

The President in his speech stated two points that must be remembered.

He first stated that he spoke with Justice Judith Jones and also “with every single judge of the Court of Appeal”.

In other words, any future decisions by these judges have been compromised by prior discussion.

Further, while the Chief Justice is being condemned for an allegation of interference, they are all silent on the issue of the President admitting that he met with judges on this issue.

The second point is that “there must be one law for all, rich or poor, big or small”.

This must first be taken with the background that the President cannot be taken before the Courts of Trinidad and Tobago.

Further is the President stating that he will accept being handcuffed and placed in the Remand Yard?

How is it that some people are allowed to report to the police station when there is an arrest warrant?

But for Basdeo Panday, jeeploads of police officers were jumping over his fence in Phillipine or wanting to interrupt a meeting with visiting Indian Parliamentarians at the Opposition Leader’s office!

For the Chief Justice, the warrant was taken to his home on a Friday evening, a Friday evening!

Since much has already been said, let us analyse the situation with common sense, a level head and minus politics and racism.

In April, 2005, the President should have suspended the Chief Justice and appointed a tribunal with a time limit for its final report.

The President did not act.

The Chief Justice applied for judicial review and was granted a hearing in the course of natural justice.

Later mediation was taking place behind closed doors.

And 16 months later, the “expeditious” determination is still awaited.

In April, 2005, the Chief Justice should have stepped aside and allowed the tribunal to make its decision within a given time frame.

Of course, he has the right to appeal any decision.

The Chief Justice must remember that he is the head of the judicial service and he cannot be the accused, standing before the same judicial service.

The decision by those in authority to treat this issue similar to that of a normal citizen committing a criminal offence shows quite clearly the immaturity of our society.

Even the President became involved.

For the police commissioner to state that he made an independent decision to arrest such a high-ranking official without consultation of the Prime Pinister, Minister of National Security, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions, etc. is not to be accepted and this must be the last occasion that such will occur.

Worse yet he continues, “my officers did not break down the door as would normally happen”.

This is left to one’s interpretation and we hope that the door is replaced by the Police Service if ever a door is broken down.

Now that the President has appointed an Acting Chief Justice, based on a letter from the Chief Justice, it is now more confusing.

The Chief Justice in a letter stated that he will no longer provide any judicial duties but only administrative duties.

The President, in his interpretation, assumed this to mean the absence of a Chief Justice and appointed an Acting Chief Justice.

It thus begs the question; do we have a Chief Justice performing his administrative duties and an Acting Chief Justice providing judicial duties?

In other words, do we have two functional Chief Justices?

And now that the Appeal Court has ruled, does this mean that the Chief Justice will soon be on the front pages with handcuffs?

And who are the chosen police officers who will proudly be at his side?

This is a once-in-a-life-time experience.

But seriously, Carnival is bacchanal but bacchanal does not only occur at Carnival.