Asking the question early o'clock, was Anand Ramlogan really removed form the Office of the Attorney General? I mean, on the surface of it yes, of course, if what the Prime Minister read to the nation is to be believed, but in a country of world renowned and stellar jurists of extremely high calibre, how does one configure a Garvin Nicholas as his replacement? Not exactly a high flying firework by any stretch of the imagination, what talent does he bring to the appointment, other than an obvious pliability and a willingness to do his handlers' bidding without question or noise? Is he now a face? A puppet placed in the chair while the real master pulls his strings and operates the Office by remote control? To many, the answer is a resounding yes and evidenced by the same 'nothing' speech punctuated by well placed and clever sounding sound bytes designed to distract while doing nothing of any real substance. Can anyone really and convincingly see the 'new' Attorney General in this role? Of course not, that is a weed hedge if ever there was one.
Why do I say that?
Something isn't, and one wonders if all of the smoke and mirrors of Monday night's public statement was not in fact to hide the fact that the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago still remains Anand Ramlogan, even if someone else draws the salary.
And if the Prime Minister is to be held in the future to the standards she laid out as justification for Monday evening's actions, what of Vasant Bharath? When the investigation is inevitably expanded to include the role he is rumored to have played in trying to suppress the Minister of National Security and dissuading him from doing what he believed was his duty, would the Prime Minister be dismissing him from his numerous Ministries as well? And if other senior Cabinet Ministers are proven to have been present for the rumored strong arming and should the police probe their roles in the thing, what of their security of tenure?
See what a tangled web we weave when we first conspire to deceive? This is a government made up of persons who have been accused of far more serious infractions and who are still the subject of all manner of police and other investigations, yet none have been made to step aside in the way that the Minister of National Security was, with the most ludicrous thing being that all Gary Griffith can be guilty of to date is knowing that one person made an indecent proposal to another, and was willing to step forward and tell the truth. In a government devoid of principle, that was sufficient to get him fired. All the fancy words aside, what was the real message here Prime Minister?