Tuesday last week, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Kamla Persad-Bissessar dismissed Senator Mary King from her government. King was Minister of Planning and the prime minister admitted to having mixed emotions concerning this former minister whom the she described as “a bright person”.
No prime minister delights in dismissing a minister, especially as the government is only one year old. However, there are principles at stake and in this regard one cannot help but admire the Trinbago leader who has demonstrated wisdom and intestinal fortitude by making this difficult decision so quickly.
King’s ministry awarded a TT$100 000 contract to a company with which she had familial ties and this appears inconsistent with the culture created by Trinidad and Tobago’s integrity legislation. In circumstances like this, the matter is referred to the Integrity Commission for investigation.
However, in the meantime, a prudent prime minister would take action to defend her government’s own integrity. In this instance, the route chosen by the prime minister was to ask the attorney general to conduct his own investigation and advise whether a prima face case could be established against King.
The AG has done this, so advised and King is now history. However, there are some noteworthy issues that arise and can either strengthen or weaken King’s case.
King promises to fully defend herself and one presumes that she will mention the fact that the contract was to be issued for a paltry TT$100 000. This dollar amount would excite people like me who would seldom encounter a contract of this nature, but Trinidad’s $100 billion economy is such that most ministers in Trinidad would hardly notice such a contract.
It is therefore possible that King assumed that small matters like this could be handled more efficiently in this way, especially if her company was eminently qualified to execute the task.
We live in a region that is small and resource scarce and there are often not a large number of people qualified to execute some tasks. In these instances, to “lock out” one service provider on the basis that s/he is related to the minister is unfortunate.
Moreover, it would cost the country to supervise a tendering process which might force them to look elsewhere to identify talent that resides in the family firm, Ixanos Limited.
If therefore that cost to the nation is weighed against the potential loss that could occur if such a contract were improperly awarded, the logic of an unsupervised award below a specified level becomes obvious.
The flip side of this defence is, however, rooted in the background of King, which makes the issue embarrassing to her, the Congress of the People (COP) and the People’s Partnership.
King is formerly head of the Trinidad and Tobago chapter of Transparency International which is an international organisation committed to increasing the level of transparency in government globally. One would therefore think that she would be exceedingly cautious to be at all times true to her philosophical mission, even if it means making declarations in instances where one would not normally be necessary.
The association with King and COP is also a material factor since COP presents a platform which stresses good governance, transparency and general decency in government.
The COP argues that Trinidad and Tobago’s politics has been plagued by a series of scandals that both the People’s National Movement and United National Congress (UNC) have at times been associated with. Neither the UNC nor COP can argue that the election was won exclusively on a platform of anti-corruption and transparency.
However, these issues have been a perennial concern in Trinidad and Tobago’s politics and could be that which distinguishes this new political entity from the political parties of the past.
There is also concern within the King camp that she has been prematurely judged by the attorney general and this is also a reasonable assertion. The laws of Trinidad and Tobago are clear that the Integrity Commission is the entity empowered to determine whether there has been a breach of its rules and what consequences should follow.
Notwithstanding, King needs to appreciate the extent to which her appointment to the Senate and Cabinet is a “gift” of the prime minister alone and is not one that is given based on a determination by the Integrity Commission of her suitability.
Instead, the prime minister would need to adopt her own standards which are entirely independent. She has therefore determined that King is no longer fit to sit in her Cabinet and I agree that her willingness to set such high standards for participation in her government speaks positively to her perspective on governance.
In setting this standard, she has the right to rely on an opinion from any source she considers reliable, whether this be the AG, Express newspaper or Ricardo “Gladiator” Welch.
This decision has been controversial and this is understandable. However, a sober reflection should cause an enhancement of Persad-Bissessar’s stocks in the public eye. She has acknowledged that one of her own has “sinned and fallen short of the glory” and moreover admitted that she was unaware of this “sin” until it was drawn to her attention in the pages of the Press.
A prime minister can be judged harshly for these failings. However, a prime minister will be judged even more harshly for not acting decisively to cast out such a “sinner”; hence Persad-Bissessar should be lauded for her action in this matter.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham@caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).