Hinds charges ‘he say, she say’

He condemned me for being involved in a “he say, she say” bacchanal.

He muttered some sarcastic nonsensical, vain babble about something I told somebody about his multi-million dollar house being constructed in Maraval.

Hinds’ has to be a strange kind of man or a bumbling idiot to put himself out of the way to listen to gossip and then like a true-to-form busy-body housewife transmit the content without shame.

This type of behaviour is probably responsible for the talk around town that the prime minister has relegated him to the PNM doghouse and also explains why the masses he represents in Laventille have no respect for the Rasta.

Certainly Hinds is really a strange dude since everyone would have expected that he at least should be aware that hearsay evidence cannot stand.

It’s no secret that I have written a couple stories about the Rasta, but it was not done with malicious intent.

It was simply to clear the air on issues of national interest with the intention of alerting a well intended brother to stay on the right path.

If the Rasta had common sense he would not go that distance with me as I don’t appreciate little boys’ mind games and my days for playing skip and dolly house with my little sisters are long gone.

So next time I bounce up the Rasta I expect him to leave me in peace because I am not in the friend business and furthermore he’s a self confessed Muslim hater and I strongly believe that our way of life and our preferences are different.

I will just have to “chill-out” until someone else gets the urge to blow the whistle on dreadlocks Rasta.

One way or another, I pray that Patrick Manning is not taking any legal instructions from Fitzgerald Hinds although it’s apparent that the biggest headache plaguing his administration is poor legal guidance.

Come what may, the Privy Council will decide on the issue of the Chief Justice and from the facts ascertain from the matter, unless no surprises emerge as in the saga of the Maha Sabha case where it was disclosed that certain evidence was wilfully withheld from the Court, the Law Lords have two options.

The first option is that the Chief Justice would win the matter as the British authority would focus mainly on the procedural aspects and not the substantive material evidence that the State believes is the main strength of its case.

Unless the Attorney General and their high paid attorney could establish the legitimacy for the PM summoning the Chief Justice to his Chambers and proposing two options they would be throwing away taxpayers funds.

You don’t have to be rocket scientist to understand that the constitution gives the PM any power or authority to be judge, jury and executioner.

Therefore, even though his confidence in the President was questionable as he did not act as was expected in the first matter with the DPP and the Attorney General verses the Chief Justice, he should have still obeyed the rule of law by insisting that the President invoke Section 137 of the Constitution.

The Privy Council’s other option is to do exactly what was done in the case with the Jamaat al Muslimeen versus the State.

Of course, it is no secret that the Privy Council technically drew the matter and none of the parties was awarded cost.

This was a landmark ruling and the Law Lords specifically stated in their judgment that no further prosecution must be administered against the Jamaat al Muslimeen.

Yet, today, the Jamaat is still before the court as the State has ignored the judgment and is trying to use a legal technicality to force the organisation to take responsibility for what the Privy Council has already nullified.

The nation must understand that this is not a PNM or United National Congress (UNC) issue or whether the Chief Justice is innocent or guilty but what is at stake is the preservation of our democracy.

It must also be clearly understood that in order for the country to maintain the democracy the separation of powers is extremely vital and the executive, legislature and the judiciary must be independent.

Inasmuch as we subscribe to the Westminister system of government, we have to be willing to face the consequences for our choice.

Since the Law Lords would have to apply one of the above options, I hope that the State would obey the rule of law and that the Chief Justice would not suffer the same faith as the Jamaat.

Nevertheless, when he is reinstated to office, he would have to restructure the institution because it appears as if he has no confidence in the arm of the criminal justice system that he controls.