To "horn" (as in somebody) is an unparliamentary term. At least in the book of Senate Vice President Lyndira Oudit. The news came Wednesday to PNM Senator Shamfa Cudjoe as she was proceeding quite vividly during the Senate's Budget debate to convey certain Tobagonian displeasure with the new Government's sister isle relations. Hand on hip, Cudjoe whose lilting Tobago accent lent to her delivery threw not only her weight around verbally, but also a number of words in various directions. Not the least of which were aimed toward the Tobago Development Minister (who later deemed Cudjoe's remarks as "unfortunate.") Freshman PNM senator Cudjoe, chastising the PP, had remarked, "If you say love and you are not showing love, you are looking for horn." Cudjoe got off with that until two other infractions later, Oudit –cautioning her–added: "Horn' is a colloquial word that is really not considered parliamentary in that context."
Cudjoe's colourfully illustrated contribution held warning for the PP on the repercussions of myriad issues–not only sited in Tobago.
Cudjoe added, "To the PP team, you are expeditiously building a stellar reputation in disrespecting the Tobago people. I point to the show put on by your colleagues in the other place...I point to the recent attempt by the Justice Minister to embarrass the Chief Justice, a Tobagonian–what is the beef of this PP Government with the Tobago people?" Government 120 day mile mark yesterday would have undoubtedly seen celebration of the achievement of its immediate action plan. Finance Minister Winston Dookeran jump-started that exercise in his September 8 Budget speech when he declared "Done!" to 13 of the PP's 32 manifesto promises. However, the 120 day mark has also blown the coalition PP into its first full blown controversy with none other than another fellow member of state administration–the judiciary. Much in the same way Justice Minister Herbert Volney gave the PP its first scare with heart surgery a month after the May 24 general election, Volney is back in a similar spotlight stemming from his statements in the House last week Thursday.
Volney was reported among other things as alleging a "sweetheart deal" on a house matter between Chief Justice Ivor Archie and former Attorney General John Jeremie. It prompted a strong statement from the judiciary three days later, earning Volney centre stage in a storm of criticism.
In its wake, Volney, 57, will deliver an explanation to the House next Friday. Volney's entry into politics was as high profile (and dramatic) as some of the high (and low) points in his career in the legal fraternity.
When Volney demitted the judiciary suddenly just before general elections to join the PP platform, his move earned concern from Archie. PP officials indicated Volney–plus Government officials Clifton de Coteau, John Sandy, Rupert Griffith and others–were courted for the PP by a senior UNC official, now a frontline Minister. In his maiden platform appearance at St Joseph which he successfully contested, protests were lodged by relatives of the late Jason Johnson. Volney had ruled on Johnson's murder case in 1998, freeing accused Brad Boyce. And Volney recently caused double takes (in and out of Government) when he suggested hangings be done in Woodford Square at 6 am.
As an attorney in the courts since 1993 and a High Court judge since 1994, Volney's reputation was for being outspoken and controversial. In 2006, acknowledging he was a popular "bobolee of the press," (sic) Volney said he was unaffected by media criticism since his skin "was as thick as an alligator's." Volney has faced criticism since 1995 and himself been critical of several arenas including the Director of Public prosecutions in 1997. His career is studded with defence of the judiciary–including former CJs Michael de La Bastide and Sat Sharma–as well as criticism of it. In 2008 he claimed that in order for a judge to ascend to the Appeal Court one had to be part of an "elite club" (sic). Considering his defence of the judiciary, Volney was asked by TG about his recent statements.
Saying he has been "nailed to the cross" in the current issue, Volney added: "Next Friday the House will see the lighter side of me not the fiery side–I want healing, I'm about this and reconciliation–I want the people to continue to love me."
"I know what caused the current furore: I was grossly misrepresented in what I said. "Somebody made a release from the judiciary last Sunday and created a situation and I was misquoted totally. "It's clear people with their own agenda seem bent on pitting me against the Chief Justice." Volney added, "It's wrong since we've always enjoyed a good cordial respectful relationship, I've always defended chief justices and for me to attack Mr Archie now is grossly out of character." "I would stiffly defend Mr Archie when it comes to anyone seeking to undermine the office of the independence of the judiciary." Saying he examined Parliament's Hansard record and audio visual tapes of his statement, Volney said he never called Archie's name. He also said the "sweetheart' deal he had referred to was a pun in reference to the name of a person whom he alleges to have been involved in the house issue. "People didn't give me a chance to explain myself," Volney added.
"I never called Mr Archie by name. That came from the judiciary's statement. It certainly would not have come from Mr Archie since he is not a malicious man." "We've had professional differences of opinion. Usually we reconciled differences or agreed to disagree. "But we've maintained cordial relations over the years. I maintain deep respect for Mr Archie and his office. This issue will not interfere with our future relations,"
He added, "I can understand why no one rose on a point of order to stop me. I don't think I offended anyone. "Mr Jeremie was not the Attorney General at the time I was referring to on the house issue or at the time of Mr Archie's appointment. I know Brigitte Annisette-George was AG then. I never said Mr Jeremie was AG then." "I called Mr Jeremie's name in saying that in the run-up to the May election it was clear to me he was undermining the judiciary's independence."
The aftermath
Apology or not, the affair as a political milestone (or millstone) may not necessarily be over for the PP Government quickly–if left to the Opposition at least–and the administration is certainly not enjoying the controversy's tenure. While Volney's constituents largely seem to support him–constituency staff said–how successful his upcoming explanation will be remains to be seen, considering concern the matter elicited as widely as within the region. On Monday, Jamaica's Gleaner newspaper editorial proclaimed "Why the T&T PM must fire her justice minister." Persad-Bissessar has lived in Jamaica which was the first state to host her after becoming PM. Stating Persad-Bissessar was still new to her job, the editorial stated "Policy gaffes by the PM and her administration are still overlooked on account of recency. It is, however, now passing the point where Mrs Persad-Bissessar can continue to expect this kind of pass."
Outlining the dangers of Volney's reported statement for the relationship among two of the three arms of the state in T&T, the Gleaner stated: "A perceptive Mrs Persad-Bissessar would fire Mr Volney." Explanations aside therefore, it remains to be seen whether the issue may always remain an invisible elephant in the room whenever Volney meets Archie. Volney says he has not spoken to Archie on the current issue. With his statement, Volney was perceived to have overshot Attorney General Anand Ramlogan's confrontational stylings, MP Anil Robert's rumbunctiousness and Works Minister Jack Warner's wordiness. Ramlogan on Wednesday hastened to say how well he does with Archie, though he echoed concern made by Volney regarding the tardiness of cases. Other usually outspoken MPs such as Jack Warner have remained mum on Volney. And also since the recent Tobago orientation retreat.)
One post-retreat lesson of this issue has not been lost on PP's team.
"When you out on a limb, you alone, "remarked one senior frontline Minister on Thursday. Some much younger PP MPs however admire Volney's style, "He tells it like it is," added one PP backbench junior minister.
The matter has raised questions about the effectiveness of the recent retreat where Law Association president Martin Daly lectured ministers on the separation of powers, Government confirmed. Participants were also instructed on media relations and issues–including how Parliamentarians behaved and the way they might be viewed–by former public service head, Reginald Dumas. Daly's lecture nothwithstanding, the Law Association–among organisations–lost no time taking issue with Volney's recent remarks. PP Ministers confirmed Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar lead retreat discussions on behaviour, speaking out of turn and encroaching on each other's Ministries. They confirmed Persad-Bissessar was "annoyed" about the Volney issue. Indeed the Prime Minister, an attorney bowed almost immediately to the judiciary's call to say where she stood on Volney's reported statements. (Nowhere near, she assured.)
However while she was distancing herself from his statements, Volney that day compounded the situation by saying he had nothing to apologise for. PP officials said after discussions with the PM on Monday Volney decided on his upcoming explanation. While Persad-Bissessar's defence of Volney's words appeared lame, anything more serious would have placed her on the spot of having to do the next thing–fire Volney. And catapult her administration into the first life-changing furore of its four month tenure. Placing an irreversible shadow on the PP.
Questions have arisen how Goverment officials did not immediately deal with the situation stemming from Volney's statement made since last Thursday–especially considering the defence of the judiciary PP MPs have mounted during their Opposition past. Persad-Bissessar, acknowledging this history in her reply to the judiciary, could not have really expected Volney's reported words would have blown over without some reaction. PP MPs admitted officials did not "take on" Volney's statements until public outcry mounted and the judiciary fired on Volney.
Further lessons...
Volney's upcoming statement could earn him at least a reprimand , PNM's Colm Imbert said yesterday: "It must be a full, unequivocal apology. It might not redeem him but at least he mightn't be suspended." If Volney is correct about being misquoted, the PP may learn more about the power of propaganda. Ironically at that. PP MPs wove a particular theme throughout their budget debate: "pounding" Opposition leader Keith Rowley for his alleged statement on "duncy first formers."
However it was understood, the line was translated to political tool by
Persad Bissessar who told reporters immediately after Rowley spoke, he should apologise to first formers. PP MPs and senators all echoed this.
Therefore, it was with some irony that it turned out to be UNC deputy leader and Senate vice president Oudit–a teacher–who explained Rowley's statement was not in the plural but the singular. It cleared Rowley who had planned explaining at next week's House (alongside Volney). But not before the PP had two weeks of political mileage on this.