THE first attempt to muzzle the media over its reporting of the scandal that is now rocking the Judiciary and the Executive came from Attorney General John Jeremie over the weekend.

A few days after the dirty linen was already hanging out in public; the AG, who is obviously as “powerful-stupid” as his boss Prime Minister Patrick Manning issued a statement in which he said: “These are sensitive matters and should be treated that way by the media, the public and members of the bar.”

Naturally, that statement was issued in concert with the obviously paranoid assertion from Manning when he addressed the House of Representatives last Friday afternoon, about the “anxiety of some commentators and sections of the media to crucify the actions of the Prime Minister”.

That was followed up by an obvious threat from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which arrived at some media houses late on Tuesday afternoon, in which Deputy Carla Brown-Antoine calls for, as the Express reported “restraint, responsibility and discretion” in the reporting of the current controversy.

AG JOHN
JEREMIE

PM PATRICK
MANNING

Now, I have made a check of some media houses, and they like us here at the TnT Mirror, up to mid-morning on Wednesday had not received a copy of Brown-Antoine’s threat that “the media may be in contempt of court to publish material that may be a real risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice even if the publication does not relate to the pending proceedings.

Does that mean that having not been served with such a notice at the time of writing, implies that I am not warned?

I have checked a couple of radio stations as well and the warning had not arrived at their news desks either.

Nevertheless, as is the case with such warnings, it is deliberately vague and the only conclusion I am to glean from the dubious paragraph is that we should all just shut up.

What can you conclude by “even if the publication does not relate to the pending proceedings”?

Tell me, Madame Deputy DPP, who should be exercising restraint, discretion and responsibility in this matter when the media is simply reporting, almost verbatim, what the high society bacchanalists themselves are saying?

And what are the pending proceedings: the police investigation into the Chief Justice for his alleged attempts to pervert the course of justice in the Basdeo Panday Integrity trial?

Or does it have anything to do with Chief Justice Sat Sharma’s court challenge of the Prime Minister’s decision to initiate investigations that could ultimately lead to criminal prosecution?

Is it intended for the PNM-controlled radio station i95.5 FM which has renewed a campaign calling for the Chief Justice to resign?

Or was it meant for Power 102, which is doing the opposite by highlighting the Prime Minister’s admission in Parliament last week that “it is very true that I did tell the Honourable Chief Justice that I would not personally like to see a Chief Justice faced with possible criminal prosecution.”

Was a copy of that sent to the AG’s Communications adviser Maxie Cuffie who is reported to be aware of the kind of stories that have been leaked by persons close to both the PM and the AG to sections of the printed media, especially the Newsday?

Where, pray tell, did the statement from British Queen’s Counsel, Timothy Cassell emanate from?

Would it not have been with the investigators?

Do you think that it was in the CJ’s interest to leak that statement which attempted to condemn him for trying to influence Cassell, who is a man of class and calibre and would know how not to get involved in affairs of the Banana Republic, except where he gets the juicy state briefs?

Journalists on the beat are talking among themselves about who leaked the information in the first attempt at impeachment back in February 2005 and from all accounts the State comes in guilty as charged.

Back then, it did not warrant a warning (of prosecution) from the Office of the DPP because it was in the State’s interest for everyone to know that CJ Sharma had pulled off his shirt to show the AG the scars from the life-saving surgery from Professor Vijay Naraynsingh, in his bid to convince the State that the man accused of murdering his wife, Chandra, was not guilty and should not have been prosecuted.

And we all concluded that Sharma is not above the law and that if he had recourse to such behaviour then he truly did not have the class to hold down the high position he occupied.

But the CJ managed to buy himself some time via a court injunction and time passed until we have found ourselves in this very messy situation, again.

Sadly, the PM is too arrogant and thinks that his country is his fiefdom and, clearly, does not have the class to handle such matter.

Manning should take note that he is only as worthy as his opponent.

So, dear folks, look at the motley bunch that’s been distracting us from matters of more serious national issues; the list reads Patrick Manning, Sat Sharma, John Jeremie and Sherman McNicolls, all of whom are men who have served this country in high office but are bungling badly because they have neither the brain nor the testicular fortitude to lead us as a people.

Manning has a second chance at the Prime Ministership and does not have the humility to accept his position with grace.

He’s a Christian with a lot of bad mind.

Sharma, we all know, was not the first choice for CJ, since he was never quite a brilliant lawyer and comes in the vein of CJ Clinton Bernard who proved to be almost equally controversial a few years ago because he did not have the class to hold down the job admirably.

Indeed, you must recall that Sharma was like a bridesmaid for several years, as a deputy, until the time came for someone to replace Michael de la Bastide.

Indeed, the decision was taken to hoist him up to the coveted position in the event that Basdeo Panday would begin braying that he was denied because of race.

Then, Panday would have been the only donkey braying on the race card but Manning went ahead and is reaping what he sowed.

When John Jeremie was appointed as Attorney General, the immediate reaction was “Who he?”

Well, he’s proven himself to be as stupid and arrogant as the Prime Minister he serves and Desmond Allum can explain that better than me; the man gave himself silk, when he’s never “advocated in a single case in our jurisdiction.”

And folks, what can you say about the Chief Magistrate?

He’s in like company with all of the above and has proven, by the recent train of events, that he too is way over his head with this job.

But, then, I can go through some history and prove that the position of Chief Magistrate -- when held by different people -- had been compromised in the past.

Truly, the only man who’s laughing all the way to the bank (Natwest?) is defamed Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday, who is on bail pending his appeal of the stiff two-year jail sentence that was handed down to him by the Chief Magistrate who found him guilty of failing to report his London bank account to the Integrity Commission.

The bacchanal is enough to give Bas another bligh in his other case that’s pending before the court.

So you see in the end how all these people holding high offices only work for themselves and one another.

They do not have we or even the Soca Warriors to study; all man jack in contempt of this beloved country.