Political distractions

2026-01-25 - 21:09

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, a seasoned politician with years in opposition, is currently crafting an image as a strong, forceful leader who will not take any prisoners. At a press conference, the Attorney General, disregarding established legal standards and relying on advice from an unnamed international legal expert outside his office, declared that the extrajudicial killings of alleged drug traffickers by the United States military were legal. In Parliament, the Prime Minister unapologetically repeated her support for the US actions, proclaiming her alignment with President Donald Trump. Last week, she again attacked this country’s independent senators. These attacks always seem to come when the Government is presenting legislation that may be considered controversial. The first overt challenge took place in July 2025 after the debate on the Prime Minister’s Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Then she expressed concern over the conduct of certain independent senators because they did not support the Government’s position. Surely, that is not the meaning of “independent”. It is the willingness to express an opinion, which is what the Constitution demands. Last week, the Prime Minister said she would not be surprised if the independent senators failed to support the Zones of Special Operations (ZOSO) legislation, arguing they were not truly independent but appointed by a President she called a “low-level PNM functionary.” In our estimation, this was an unfortunate characterisation of the President’s office. When asked if she regretted her remarks, the Prime Minister further stated the independent senators lacked the courage to contest elections and were appointed because they are “bootlickers and brown-nosers.” As the Prime Minister should be aware, all senators are unelected, including those appointed by the United National Congress and the People’s National Movement. We presume that they were selected to represent the interests of the party they represent and were not appointed because they are “bootlickers and brown-nosers.” Likewise, the President is constitutionally required to appoint outstanding persons from economic, social, or community organisations, as well as from other major fields of endeavour. None of the independents are known to be members of any political organisation. We must conclude, therefore, that the choice of language is deliberate and designed to diminish the Office of the President and the independent senators. However, the independent senators are part of the constitutional requirements for running the country. Moreover, the role of independent senators was not an election campaign issue, but if the Prime Minister is dissatisfied with the constitutional arrangements, there is a procedure for addressing the changes she considers necessary. This country faces grave existential threats. Priorities such as tackling rampant crime, overhauling inadequate infrastructure, repairing the Government’s deeply flawed fiscal position, ensuring real and lasting economic growth, and securing sufficient foreign exchange cannot be addressed by blaming independent senators. Such narratives only serve to distract attention from the urgent actions required.