PM Patrick Manning

The Prime Minister vigorously defends what he calls the Full Gospel Movement as he gives a comprehensive account of financial assistance and land grants doled out to religious bodies over the past 50 years. He, however, failed to say much about the female Rasputin.

Prime Minister Patrick Manning hit back hard at his detractors in the Heights of Guanapo Church controversy today and as a good born again Christian insisted that this “persecution of the Full Gospel Movement has to come to an end.”

Not only that: rather self-righteously the “small church” Prime Minister, as he has been described in some quarters, said that his critics were trying “to smear the name of the Prime Minister” and their attacks were tantamount to a persecution in Prime Minister.”

Manning, who said that he was responsible for ecclesiastical matters, in one of his rare command performances in Parliament which he, obviously, hopes should put this controversy to an end, lambasted the press, particularly the Express, and claimed that two reporters underwent a spiritual experience, when they spoke to a certain unnamed religious person, “It put the fear of God in their hearts”, he repeatedly told his audience, which included some 32 parliaments from the Caribbean.

He had some solid blows for the Opposition –Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner first raised the issue in the House one week ago- noting that they had singled out the Miracle Ministries when the United National Congress (UNC) was in power and gave it $ 14 million to build a secondary school. That administration had also given one Baptist diocese headed by a UNC senator 25 acres of land.

The Prime Minister made it clear that he had no personal involvement in the Guanapo Church building that was being constructed nor was any taxpayers’ money involved.

He gave an account of the project after he gave a comprehensive outline of financial and land grants given to all religious organisations in the country over the past 50 years and the numerous requests by such organisations for land and other forms of assistance.

Regarding the contentious Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ church under construction, he said that in 2005, they applied for 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) of land but were given 0.3 acres by cabinet. Town and Country refused approval for a building on the land stating that it could not be subdivided and cabinet, in his absence while he was abroad, increased the size of the land grant to over three acres. The matter, however, is still to be regularised by the Town and Country Planning Department.

Mr Manning was allowed by the Speaker of the House Barry Sinanan to commandeer almost one hour of the Opposition’s precious time. It was the last Friday of the month, traditionally Private Members’ Day which is set aside for the Opposition to bring private motions dealing with various issues. The Speaker said he was allowing the statement by Mr Manning because it had been an issue in the public domain for the past week.

The Prime Minister, while going on the offensive and trying to demonstrate that the Government was being even handed (over the past six years it had given out over $245.8 million to various denominational organisations for a variety of purposes and there was a virtual free for all by these bodies for land from the State) unfortunately betrayed his association with Christian organisations he called The Full Gospel Movement in rushing to their defence.

While he may not have answered all the questions, for instance the contracting of Shanghai Construction to build the church and his association with the shadowy Reverend Juliana Pena, said to be a modern day Rasputin of sorts, his critics have not been able to prove any improper behaviour.

He stressed that no State funds were provided for this woman, said to be his spiritual advisor, for her foreign travels. He did not mention his relationship with the lady as he ought to have done.

There may be some lingering suspicions least of all about the role of the press in not painting a proper picture of Church-State relations in Trinidad and Tobago in terms of the significant financial and other assistance doled out by the State over the years.

It is an election year and the new Opposition leader appears to be the new political darling of the established Press. Certainly, something to think about.

Speculation is that President Max Richards may announce the names of the long-awaited Integrity Commission when he addresses both houses of Parliament at today’s ceremonial opening which begins at 10a.m. at the Red House.

The country has been without an Integrity Commission for almost one year: last February the entire Commission resigned after being castigated by a High Court judge and in April the replacements appointed by the President had last April a short life.

The President had indicated late last year that he was in the process of assembling a new body.

Professor Richards will outline the Government’s proposals for the new parliamentary session. This should include credit union legislation, measures regarding crime and the economy.

This will be the third session of the 2007 Parliament.

The Government cannot find a friend to side with it on the controversial Property Bill inside and outside of Parliament.

The Government was warned tonight in the Senate that it risked losing the next General Election if the Property Tax became law.

The man making the prediction was university professor Independent Senator Dr Ramesh Deosaran who spoke out against the bill which came under heavy attack in the Senate.

Opposition Senator Wade Mark, who led the charge, also warned of legal action if the bill was passed in its present form since one of the sections which deals with confiscation of property contravened section four of the constitution.

“This bill must be withdrawn and if you don’t withdraw it, you will pay a price”, Mark threatened.

He gave notice of a filibuster that would ruin the New Year’s Eve plans of members on the Government bench.

The unpopular bill was also criticised by Independent Senator Basharat Ali who found some of the measures confusing.

The controversial legislation sparked a public demonstration outside Parliament a fortnight ago with riot police attacking protestors.

Debate will continue tomorrow.

Dr Keith Rowley

The CEO of the NWRHA is sent on leave while the organisation is audited. Hart gets a new contract and Prime Ministerial defence.

Maverick People’s National Movement (PNM) MP Dr Keith Rowley launched a blistering attack on the Government in Parliament last night accusing it of trying to fool the people and renewed his call for action against UDECOTT chairman Calder Hart.

Speaking during the debate on the controversial Property Tax bill, Rowley, applauded by the Opposition, said that people were angry about the bill and believed that the Government was taking them for a ride.

He said that people were unhappy with the governance of the country and believed that the Government had gotten its priorities wrong and had wasted money.

He argued that people would be willing to pay a greater level of property tax if they received the benefits of better sports and social amenities and policing of their communities and an overall improvement in the quality of life.

Rowley, the member of Parliament for Diego Martin West, said that the proceeds of the Property Tax would go into the “black hole” of the Consolidated Fund (The Treasury) while it should go to the various regional corporations to fund their programmes.

He noted that this happens in Tobago, pointing out that “there has been a significant improvement of life for the people of Tobago with the coming of the Tobago House of Assembly.”

He said that the Regional Corporations always got money late and could not fund a lot of their activities like repairing roads, ridding communities of vermin and so on.

“People are saying, at the national level, we have enough resources, we had enough resources and we could evade some of these negatives but we are not because of the way we are doing business.”

He went on: ”I know a lot of people for whom one hundred dollars is a lot of money. Some people are living at the margins and any increase is a hardship. It is not correct to say nobody will be feeling a hardship as a result of this.

There will be hardships.”

Rowley thundered “too many of our citizens are questioning the Government’s priorities and they are afraid as they are faced with this taxation that the money would be used for things they don’t approve”

He added this was so especially in a climate when people in charge would say “I don’t have to listen to you, once I’m here I’ll do as I please.”

Rowley had some blows for the Government’s preferential treatment of UDECOTT chairman Calder Hart.

He said that he had read in the newspaper that Agatha Carrington Chief Executive Officer of the North West Regional Authority (NWRHA) had been sent on leave while an audit was carried out by an accounting firm.

“Immediately my mind went to the chairman of UDECOTT, who under a Commission of Enquiry very damaging and scandalous allegations of his personal conduct is common knowledge in this country. His agency has been exposed for all kinds of shortcomings. There are issues of potential criminal conduct and violation of various laws and under the same administration where Ms Carrington was sent on leave because Pricewaterhouse is doing an investigation there is defiant defence of the chairman of UDECOTT.”

He said that there was “spirited defence of the indefensible”. Ms Carrington was sent home but Calder Hart “got a pay increase, a new contract and Prime Ministerial defence.”

He warned that when the Government talked about equity such a situation was not equity and when it talked about equity in taxation and “people don’t believe you and don’t trust you. And, unfortunately, they all come together at the same time. There is a confluence of bad news for my colleagues.”

Earlier, Finance Minister Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Tesheira, replying at last to a question filed by Rowley weeks ago, revealed that Hart was paid a total of $146,000 a month plus several allowances and his contract was renewed in September.

The debate on the bill, which was kicked off by the Finance Minister, went late into the night and will conclude on Monday.

Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Tesheira

Heat inside and outside Parliament as debate on the controversial Property Tax begins. There has been a public outcry over the new legislation.

A massive demonstration is expected outside Parliament today as the Government begins debate on the highly controversial Property Tax.

The People’s Democracy, the National Joint Action Committee(NJAC)and the Opposition Congress of the People(COP) intend to march around the Red House while the Bill is debated.

The Property Tax which was forewarned in the 2009-2010 Budget in September as a new means of valuing properties has been seen in many quarters as a piece of legislation which, if implemented in its current form, would be burdensome to the lower and middle classes.

The legislation proposes to tax properties on an annual rental valuation basis of three per cent. It will replace the current land and property tax system that is over 60 years old where property owners, in some instances, paid less than $100 annually.

The problem with the new tax is that some people, particularly, those with small or fixed incomes could be paying 15 times more, in some instances.

Government proposes to introduce the new tax from January 1.

With Government announcing a fiscal deficit of $7.7 billion in the budget, some people see the imposition of the tax as a means of Government finding money to run the country and it is believed that the property tax might rake in between $3 billion to $5 billion.

With billions spent on educational and social programmes and with incomes $5,000 monthly or less not being taxed, the Government had, partly, to make up for the shortfall.

Respected commentators like former senators John Spence and Dr Julian Kenny and university Professor Dennis Pantin.

Professor Spence feels that “the introduction of the property tax will create many inequities and will affect lower income folk more severely.”

He sees the Government taxation programme as regressive in that it affects the poor more than the wealthy.

Dr Kenny goes into the technicalities that the Ministry of Finance will encounter and warns serious problems will arise “both with using location and ignoring individual circumstances.”

He argues “what must take the cake is the actual rental value expected to be earned on such a property (owner occupied).”

Professor Pantin notes that “one over-enthusiastic technocrat is quoted as stating that the Finance Ministry has been working on property valuation update for the past four years.

“Yet, the current proposal is for use of rental not property values. Moreover, values- even if rental- from four years ago, when the boom was very much at its peak, are not going to be relevant today.”

Callers to talk shows on the electronic media are all agreed on an updating of property taxes but feel that the current increases are too steep and that the tax should be gradually increased over time.

The Senate passed the controversial Tobacco Control Bill with amendments today.

The bill had originally made it an offence to sell single cigarettes from packets and also taking a puff in one’s home.

The bill which is aimed at discouraging smoking and which proposed harsh penalties was strongly criticised by the Opposition and some Independent senators and the Government relented, passing a watered down version.

The Commission of Enquiry into the construction sector and UDECOTT has been validated after an “administrative error” was brought to the attention of the Senate by the Attorney General. UDECOTT, however, is not about to let Professor Uff off the hook.

.About 10 minutes past ten last night, all the fuss, in the Senate, was over and the Government was able to get the required three fifths majority to pass the Commission of Enquiry Validation and Immunity from Proceedings bill to clear the way for the Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Sector to continue its work and be assured that what it had done since January was not a waste of time and money.

No matter that the Urban Development Company (UDECOTT) variously denigrated as a “runaway horse”, “runaway railway” and other uncomplimentary titles has gone to court to take action against the UFF Commission. The AG disclosed, in response to a question said that the proceedings will not be stayed until Professor Uff has been given the opportunity to be heard.

Why did a Government company using taxpayers funds seek to take the Government and a Government appointed Commission of Enquiry to court?

This was unprecedented noted Independent Senator Dana Seetahal and Independent Senator Subhas Ramkhelawan wondered why the Government did not simply fire such a brazen board. Why not, indeed! Boards have been sacked for much less.

The Attorney General admitted that he was not happy with the court action and UDECOTT board member in the person of trade unionist Michael Annisette, who let the chamber know that he was educated at “Docksford”, defended the company’s constitutional right to legal redress.

While the Attorney General told the Senate that the non-gazetting of the members of the Commission, which was appointed on September 9, 2008, was an “administrative error’ Opposition leader in the Senate Wade Mark saw it as a “gigantic conspiracy” but strangely also “a clear case of criminal negligence” and incompetence.

Mark like a batsman facing weak bowling got carried away and made some un-certifiable charges against UDECOTT Chairman Calder Hart.

Ramkhelawan was more to the point noted hat up to June 2008,UDECOTT expenditure amounted to $7.4 billion and when placed in context of the Piarco Airport matter which was a mere 41.7 million in terms of allegations of corruption. That $7.4 billion figure represents 20 per cent of Government expenditure.

“Where there is smoke, there is fire”, he pointed out , referring to the perception of a corrupt UDECOTT.

Temporary Opposition Senator Raphael Cumberbatch, the individual with the most experience in Senate life being a retired deputy Senate Clerk, also waylaid the Government and wondered why the UDECOTT board could take legal action “without any clearance from the line ministry” and wanted to know whether Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde, the Minister of Planning, Housing and the Environment was privy to the decision to the UDECOTT board before it was made.

He invited her to clarify but she did not take the bait.

And so it went, the Government being thumped, mercilessly, from the Opposition and Independent benches.

Earlier in the day, the Government averted big trouble of a different kind when it was announced that cabinet had advised TSTT and the PTSC to scuttle plans to seek the decertification of the Communication Workers Union and the Transport and Industrial Workers, respectively.

As they say, looking at the hands off attitude to the Prime Minister’s favourite special purpose company, Gopaul luck ain’t Seapaul luck.

Jeremie leaps to the defence of his Prime Minister. In the process, a judge is hammered in the sacred precincts of Parliament.

The Attorney General took the unprecedented step in parliament of not only attacking a court ruling but going as far as referring the judge in question to the Chief Justice, thereby, bringing into clear focus the traditional principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

While this cherished democratic principle might have always been in question and the court here in the past has ruled certain legislation as unconstitutional, it is the first time that there has been a frontal attack on the judiciary in parliament.

With constitutional reform high on the country’s agenda, AG John Jeremie’s action should now place the relationship between both institutions of State a key issue for discussion. Particularly, since there are constitutional proposals for a Ministry of Justice which may or may not impinge on the independence of the judiciary and place us in a Latin American republican hell.

While the court has to adjudicate on matters brought before it and cannot, by any means, take a hands off stance to issues involving Government’s actions, legislation or otherwise, the bothersome question still has to be asked: should the judiciary be taken to task in parliament or elsewhere by politicians? Will constitutional warning bells not be sounded?

The judiciary, which is expected to dispense justice and deal with the excesses of the executive, however, is not a sacred cow and like the political directorate or parliament should be subject to public scrutiny. AG Jeremie’s spirited defence of the Prime Minister in which he accused Justice Rajendra Narine’s ruling to have allegations contained in Muslimeen leader Abu Bakr’s affidavit sent to the Acting Commissioner of Police and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions may be seen as unusual in terms of the forum he used.

Jeremie did not only defend his Prime Minister. He went on the offensive and reported Judge Narine to the Chief Justice, obviously, for a dressing down. Jeremie’s contention is that Narine’s decision was in defiance of the Appeal Court and the Privy Council. That, of course, is a moot legal point which another former Attorney General in the person of Opposition MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar has, gratuitously, decided to argue stating that Jeremie is wrong; he is in contempt of court and had he made a similar speech outside of Parliament would have been jailed.

Jeremie noted that the insurrectionist’s affidavit was described as “scandalous” by the Court of Appeal and ordered removed from the record and pointed out that Bakr had also made serious allegations about former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj but no one took any notice of it.

AG Jeremie’s intervention may raise certain doubts about the dispensation of justice in this country or the behaviour of the political directorate. However, of late, there has been some disquiet in the judiciary. Recently, Judge Stanley John criticised the decisions of a magistrate and, apparently, was hauled across the coals.

Judge Herbert Volney, who apparently does not want to be an Appeal Court Judge, had choice criticisms about the judiciary implying cronyism. When Sat Sharma was under the gun, it is an open secret that the judiciary was split into two camps and there was a lot of tension among brother judges. The reality is that while former Chief Justice Isaac Hyatali could have spoken 30 years ago about the watering of the brandy in terms of the calibre of judges joining the judiciary in that era what we may be seeing now is the unravelling of the very fabric of a cherished institution.

The AG has robustly (to use a current popular) legal term thrown a spanner in the works: the matter, of course, could have been handled otherwise. We will just have to wait and see what happens next.

Perhaps, the Chief Justice may touch on the state of the judiciary when he addresses the ceremonial opening of the new law term today.

Of late, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Jack Warner and Gypsy Peters have been supporting Government legislation .Opposition eyes will be on them as the Budget Debate begins.

Will Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday punish listeners with a three hour monologue in response to a Budget Speech that lasted that long?

When he responds to the Finance Minister this morning, by the House of Representatives’ Standing Orders, he can speak for that length of time-actually three hours 10 minutes- and attack, attack , attack.

He has already deemed the Budget “shameless’ and will surely have similarly less complimentary remarks.

However, the focus could be on the “Ramjack” trio of former Chief Whip Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Jack Warner and Winston “Gypsy”. Will they once again break party lines and support the Government?

The debate starts at 10a.m and all 41 members are expected to talk.

Michael Annisette and Gail Merhair support the Government. Other Independent senators voted “no”

The Government, certainly, did not have its way with the unpopular Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill. It had a bit of a fight on its hand before the bill was passed in the Senate late Wednesday night.

The majority of the Independent senators spoke out against Government’s outrageous decision to postpone Local Government elections for the fourth consecutive year. Subash Ramkhelawan, Dana Seetahal, Helen Drayton and others gave the Government hell for having the nerve for not holding elections in 2006 as constitutionally due and for not providing reasonable grounds for postponing the polls.

When the vote was taken, the Government passed the bill by a 17-13 majority with one abstention .Most Independent senators voted against the bill with Michael Annisette, not unexpectedly, and Gail Merhair supporting the Government.

Earlier in the piece, Prime Minister indicated that most people were not really interest in Local Government elections but the delivery of services.