Tony
Sir Brian Alleyne delivered a lecture on the constitution and the
prescribed role of a number of public institutions and officers..
I address the following because you are a lawyer and I am not and secondly
because of your admitted role as public spokesperson for the P.Minister and
the Government. We await your prompt response as we have come to expect
On Lennox Linton's programme I posed the question to you on whether you
agreed to the specific rules for conduct of the Speaker, Director of Public
Prosecution, Public Accounts Committee, etc..
Are you in accord with Sir Brian's interpretation and if you differ
..where, and how do you differ? Is it your view that public institutions/public
officers are conducting themselves more particularly in current times in
accordance with constitutional mandates..as ONE example the requirement for
consultation? If you agree that there are violations how can these be
remedied?
Your view will be a significant contribution to national discussion on the
constitutional issues as was the great impact of Sir Brian's lecture. We
should expect no less from you
C A Shillingford
Style experts spot a ‘no-no’ inside the Oval Office
Amanpour: Dissent about war in Ukraine in Putin’s circle is ‘silenced’
Cannes Film Festival 2023: The stand-out films and stars this year
Anti-Putin Russians based in Ukraine allegedly stage incursion into Russia
Dominica Users Group >> Sir Brian
I am also eager to review Sir Brian’s comments on our institutions and their effectiveness. I hope it addresses the many concerns I have raised in the past; more importantly the need for constitutional amendments allowing for these institutions to be more effective in their mandate.
This growing dissent and content for the government by citizens of the land (both politically motivated and not) of late is weakening in achieving a civil resolution, and intensifying with a dis-contention of concern.
This ever increasing questioning of the legitimacy of freedom of expression (and what is acceptable or not) should be of concern; this is an essential foundation in a democratic society and (less the assassination of character for politically motivated reasons), must be protected at all cost. Freedom of expression is not only a guarantee against the State but
also a fundamental principle for life in democracy. Freedom of
expression applies not only to information and ideas that are favorably
received or regarded as inoffensive or indifferent, but also to
expression that may offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of
the population.
A government that wants to “impose an ideology that prohibits dissent,” is a government tinkering with the fundamental rights ‘guaranteed’ in a democratic society; such an ideology is undemocratic and borders on the making of a totalitarian state. Whilst I disagree with much that has been said, it is a right that must be protected at all cost!
Dominica Users Group >> Sir Brian
Christian, I commend your civic participation and concerns as stated in your note. Freedom of expression is, as you rightly stated, a brake against misconduct by those who wield state power – or power of any kind whatsoever. Where the weak state institutions on Dominica will not address wrongdoing, we shall take the struggle for good governance to those of goodwill overseas. The failure of our government to institute a commission of inquiry to address the cascading allegations of wrongdoing – along with the admitted “mistakes” coupled with the call to destroy the economic foundations of those who challenge misrule, leaves us no choice. I hope the government will take heed and hear the call, instead of being serenaded by a chorus of yes men and women.
Gabriel Christian, Esq.
Dominica Users Group >> Sir Brian
Gabe,
whilst I agree that it would be in the best interest of the Prime Minister to initiate a COI, (if he has nothing to hide); I also understand his motives for not succumbing to those who are destined to destroy him by calling for one. The IPO commission has been called upon to investigate the assertions of corruption againt the Prime Minister and have not convened a COI; why is that? Are they not mandated by ‘law’ to investigae and pre-determine if the allegations brought about’, are warranted and can be ‘truly’ substantiated with ‘evidence’? If Lennox Linton’s claim can be substantiated by the commission, and is not based on conjecture or a political malfeasance, then they are obligated to initiate a COI. A failure of’ indicates to me that they cannot, or cannot because of some ‘provision’ within the Act.
On the flip, why is it not possible that the commission ‘may have’ concluded that Lennox’s claims were based on ‘unsubstantiated’ evidence and or, grounds supporting the
allegations of fraud and corruption?
One would think the commissions preliminary inquiries into the allegations brought forth by Lennox Linton were characterized by an
extensive ‘internal’ assessment of the ‘evidence’ presented, in supporting the claim.
Although the Commission may have concluded (internally) that there was no ‘substantiated evidence’ of fraud or mis-appropriation of public funds (purely speculative on my part) by the Prime Minister; the secrecy and lack of transparency (without public disclosure of its findings), continues to fuel this controversy surrounding these assertions, and are now ‘calling into question’ the effectiveness of the commission; hence the perpetuation and continuance of the uncertainty by the public, governing the commissions motives and secrecy.
My fight is not with the Prime Minister, it is with our institutional and governing framework, and the ‘nasty’ little provisions entrenched within that require constitutional amendment! The battle should not be with the effect or those of a questionable moral fiber, they come and go, yet we continue to be subjected to the same; which is why we need to legislate and institute meaningful change!
The O.E Leblanc’s, and the Dame Charles of the world are the exception to the rule!
Cheers.