22 Mar 2010

Profligacy dispreading

Ever since I started writing this blog, I have documented endless proof that dotishness is alive, real and quite possibly dispreading.  One key area of dotishness is the Trinidad and Tobago government.

Don’t get me wrong, sometimes by a fluke or 2 the government gets things right. I haven’t seen any proof yet, but I include that statement because no doubt – by the powers of fate and probability – it can’t be 100% ineffective. Still, mainly the dotishness is rampant.

Case in point where it spent untold millions on the construction sector. Another example is spending extravagant sums fighting unwinnable cases all the way to the Privy Council. Recall if you will, the Maha Sabha case aka Trinity Cross issue, the Maha Sabha case aka the Citadel issue, the failure to implement the Equal Opportunities Act, the Feroza Ramjohn case, the Abu Bakr affidavit issue, the deliberate misinterpretation of key legislation by the duncey service etc etc.

Now, the mule-like demeanour of this current administration is once again rearing an ugly truth – the public purse has no limit when it comes to spending. What am I referring to?

Recently, the State lost at both High Court and Court of Appeal an issue where it had to pay $31.2 million to a private contractor because State lawyers had failed to file paperwork on time. Now JJ is claiming that he intends to go to the Privy Council to appeal.

In a written judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal Jamadar described the circumstances of the case as “a complete calamity” and “colossal disaster” which was caused by the failure of lawyers to meet deadlines which had been set out in the lawsuit when it was at the pre-action and first instance stages.

The part I don’t get, and which I can only describe as the dotishness malady that afflicts JJ and his colleagues is that JJ admits they were wrong!

Jeremie criticised the current Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR), under which the Court of Appeal ordered the State to pay $31.2 million for not filing a defence on time, and hinted that they may soon be reviewed.

So you criticise the rules which allow the Court to rule against you, even though those rules are the ones in effect? Furthermore, because you don’t like them, you want to change them?

I can only say that the irresponsibility and profligacy appears to be reaching new highs… or lows if you prefer. The dispread is now runaway.

I will be there at the Privy Council for this one.

Comments