The Council of the Law Association of T&T
95–97 Frederick Street
Port-of-Spain
Dear Sirs,
Re: The Strategic
Services Agency (Amendment) Bill
It is with great concern that I am writing to you about the above proposed legislation. I was one of several hundred people whose phones were illegally tapped during the period 2002 to 2010 by the Strategic Services Agency under the Manning Regime. As I have never at any time in my entire life ever been involved in any illegal or subversive activities the only possible conclusion is that I was spied upon and my constitutional rights infringed because of politics.
I spoke with Mr Shankar Bidaisee last week in his capacity as Secretary of the Association to enquire as to what is the position of my Association and what we have done about this Bill. Mr Bidaisee said that the Council did write (though he didn’t say when) to the Attorney General, but flatly declined to give any other information other than to say that the President and Vice President did meet with the Attorney General.
He suggested that I should address any and all concerns that I may have on the matter to you in writing as the matters that I was enquiring about were confidential and he refused to discuss it.
Confidential? What could possibly be confidential about a breach of a citizen’s constitutional rights? What could possibly be confidential about a member asking what the position of his Association was on a matter of public importance? What utter rubbish!
The Law Association is uniquely positioned in civil society to address important matters such as this and I reasonably expected that you would have done something about it already. And please don’t tell me that if I was so concerned that I could have done something about it earlier. Obviously! But you were put in charge of the Law Association to lead, and the only test of leadership is to lead and to lead vigorously.
I had (wrongly?) presumed that you were dealing with the matter and it was only when I had the rather truncated conversation with the Association’s Mr Bidaisee that my concerns became urgent.
I have the following questions for you to which I would appreciate your urgent response:
1—What is the considered position of the Council on this Bill? And if you don’t have one, then why not?
2—When did you come to this position and why have you not consulted with the membership on it? If you did consult with the membership, when did you do so? I certainly was never consulted.
3—What did the letter to the Attorney General on this Bill say? When was it sent? Has there been a reply? If so, what did the reply say?
4—Was this Bill discussed with the Attorney General when the President and Vice-President met with him? If not, why not? What were the discussions if they did indeed take place?
5—What report (if any) was given by the President and Vice-President to the Council of their meeting with the Attorney General on this Bill? If no report was given, why not?
6—Why has there been no meeting of the membership on this matter? And don’t tell me that any 25 members could call a meeting. Obviously. But you were put in charge to lead. Don’t you think that this matter requires leadership on your part?
7—Don’t you agree that in something as serious and as important and far reaching as this that you should have consulted the membership? If not, why not?
You see, your failure to deal with this matter gives rise to the most unnecessary suspicions that there is a political bias in favour of the ruling PNM within the Council. Such suspicions if allowed to fester or (worse) be proven to be true, would inevitably damage the reputation of the Law Association in ways that would hurt both the membership as well as the country unimaginably. Our body is supposed to be above the political fray and to be seen as such. The last thing that we need is for us to be accused of protecting a political directorate.
Because this matter is so important and because as lawyers we must be prepared to let everything that we do bask in the full glare of the public, I am writing this letter as an open letter to you and am copying it to all of the daily newspapers so that they may conduct their own investigations.
Finally, for the record, I will not let this matter be swept by you under the carpet and reserve the right to take any and all such actions that I may deem necessary in the future as regards this or any other matter in which the reputation of the Law Association is involved.
May I hear from you by urgent (and public) return?
Yours faithfully,
Robin Montano