In his time, George Odlum took the island’s cultural/religious phenomenon, which described children as legitimate or illegitimate, and applied the derivative legitimacy to political misfits and pretenders who had no history of struggle and were, in his view, unqualified for politics. Legitimacy is hardly bandied about these days, perhaps because those whom the cap fits have decided on a truce of silence. Still, some who fall within Odlum’s description are bent on pointing fingers, believing they can hoodwink others. Perhaps it’s the technique of the con artist who points elsewhere while his mischief is created before our very eyes.
In the above context the latest public comments by the leader of the opposition and his preferred sidekick, the MP for Castries South, recently reached me. The leader of the opposition has been disclosing for public consumption what he would do, if God forbid, his party is returned to office. His latest promise is: “There will be no investigation into Grynberg.” This is a self-serving statement. It obviously was meant as reassurance for his former leader whom he prays will disappear quietly into the setting sun before election time.
Mr. Pierre’s statement on Grynberg can also be interpreted as party propaganda for consumption by SLP hacks. It may even be an invitation to one Earl Huntley to join the Pierre for Prime Minister campaign. Those who have had a modicum of training on how to observe the spoken word vis-à-vis the actions of politicians will now question the grounds on which Mr. Pierre wishes to investigate Mr. Guy Joseph, the MP for Castries Southeast.
Let me say this as clearly as I can: Guy Joseph does not need me or anyone else to defend him. My only interest in this latest contract signing matter is as a student of politics. It allows me to state that no politician has been pursued more relentlessly by this new SLP than Guy Joseph. From name calling to forensic investigation by foreign expertise, they have thrown everything at him.
I should declare a second interest: It’s in my nature to fall automatically on the side of the unfairly persecuted. I also find it politically interesting that the IMPACS matter has not been settled and that the island stands to lose more from this prolonged crisis. Here is a summary of one of the several articles I wrote on IMPACS: “The IMPACS report about the police investigations for extra-judicial killings could not proceed except by way of further investigation commensurate with the judicial process. Evidence was apparently adduced when there was no report of any cross-examination during the proceedings. Who gave evidence and what was the nature of the evidence, was not made known and has not been made known.
What then should have happened is this: the Governor General should have set up a commission of inquiry and the persons who gave evidence to the IMPACS Commission would have had to give evidence in public and also be crossed-examined in public. That should put an end to this seemingly unending fiasco.”
I wish to suggest to the leader of the opposition that if he genuinely is interested in the welfare of the people of Saint Lucia, including the members of the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force, he should propose a Commission of Inquiry into the IMPACS matter. Also, and to clear his good name and that of his former Cabinet colleague, he must state in clear language that he is prepared to set up a similar commission of inquiry into the Grynberg oil deal, and to try to find a way out of the expensive legal entanglements that threaten to return this island to the begging bowl. For clarity, I go further and suggest that Mr. Pierre drop the Juffali matter, seeing that the guy is no longer among the living. I pray that any goodwill payments from Juffali be directed at struggling school children in need of books and support.
Of course, there is nothing stopping the opposition from investigating Guy Joseph or any other member of the government. What seems hypocritical (and I have no reason to believe the people of Saint Lucia have any great love for hypocrites) is when politicians see the speck only in their opponent’s eyes but never in their own. That is never good politics and it often strikes at the root of one’s legitimacy. A politician who criticizes another must first make certain his criticism does not apply equally to the critic. There is always the chance some child will discover that the emperor is naked!
