We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making political choices in our country. My mind goes back to Prime Minister Patrick Manning, whose approach was clear that individuals should step aside from office while serious matters are being examined. I saw it as an attempt to improve and protect public trust and the integrity of the office.
Things are different today. The current prime minister presides over an administration in which several officeholders remain in place despite public controversy, unresolved questions, or allegations that have drawn national attention. One high-profile example is the Minister of Homeland Security. Questions have been raised about his past conduct. While the minister has denied any wrongdoing and there are no criminal convictions, the issues have not been fully resolved in the public eye.
Other ministers have also faced criticism. Minister Anil Roberts, for instance, resigned as Minister of Sport following the LifeSport programme scandal. The programme, designed to train young people and steer them away from crime, was found to have serious irregularities, including breaches of procurement rules and misuse of funds. Roberts denied any wrongdoing and initially resisted calls to resign, but Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar accepted his resignation. A Newsday article on Friday, 1 August 2014, quoted the then Prime Minister saying: “The expectation of the public that something will be done when wrongs are committed in public office is now the hallmark of good governance, … “Consequently, I have decided to accept the offer of resignation as Minister of Sport from Mr Anil Roberts.”
So, what has changed for him to be back in the Government today?
Roberts has also been involved in a separate controversy, alleging that members of another Caribbean prime minister’s family received preferential treatment in acquiring HDC housing in Trinidad. These claims have sparked strong denials, diplomatic attention, and threats of defamation lawsuits.
History shows that in 2006, Eric A. Williams Jr., then Minister of Energy, was removed from Cabinet after being charged with corruption and bribery related to government contracts. The case later collapsed, but the principle applied at the time was that unresolved criminal allegations made it incompatible for a minister to remain in office. Similarly, Jagdeo Singh, now Speaker of the House of Representatives, was convicted and imprisoned in the early 2000s for corruption-related offences, only to have his conviction quashed by the Privy Council in 2005. Legally cleared, Singh’s appointment to a high parliamentary office nonetheless continues to raise public debate about the balance between legal vindication and political trust.
Taken together, these examples illustrate a shift in accountability. Whereas criminal allegations in the past often led to immediate removal or resignation, today unresolved controversies, allegations, and civil disputes may be managed through explanations, denials, or legal threats rather than by stepping aside. To suggest that anyone should be punished without due process or that cleared individuals should be barred permanently from office is not an acceptable solution either, but it does highlight a pressing need for clear, consistent standards to guide when legal or ethical concerns should affect political responsibility.
Without such standards, public confidence erodes. Citizens are left uncertain about what conduct is acceptable in office, and political controversies risk overshadowing governance itself. Maintaining trust requires not only legality, but judgment, transparency, and a willingness to act when questions of integrity arise. The possibilities for us to transform our country, continue to occupy my mind, but often stimulate a pessimistic view. We are between a rock and a hard place.
Dennise Demming 