That’s not way to do it, Mr Volney

<p>If the Justice Minister could seek to dismiss, distort and even question the right of &ldquo;editorial writers&rdquo; and others, including senior attorneys and the Commissioner of Police, to criticise his statement on the shooting of Atiba Duncan, it would be interesting to see if he now damns acting Prime Minister Winston Dookeran for joining in that criticism.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Mr Dookeran commented: &ldquo;Improper reaction by those in authority cannot be allowed to compromise the very process through which justice is sought and delivered.&rdquo; Responding over the weekend to the stinging editorials on his comments, which were made last week while a shooting by police was being investigated, Mr Volney wanted to know &ldquo;how could it be that a minister, elected by the people, can be insulted, abused and hauled over editorial ink for representing the cries of his people for justice.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Having the constitutional right to give support to his constituents does not, however, include drawing damning conclusions on a &ldquo;homicidal killing&rdquo; without the benefit of a trial process. To further distort reality, Mr Volney sought to make it a question of MPs having to make a choice between standing up for their constituents or resigning their jobs as minister.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>He should look around at his Cabinet colleagues who have also been elected by constituents and who stand firm behind them, but who do so without seeking to be judge, jury and executioner&mdash;all without the evidence being examined by a court.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
It is therefore clear that there is no quarrel with an MP, minister or backbencher representing his or her constituents. What is at issue is the manner of that representation. As a representative, Mr Volney should also understand that representation is not about invoking emotional and potentially explosive reaction from people deeply grieving for their relative and friend. It is about informing them of the need for due process to take place&mdash;a process that a former judge should be well aware of.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Mr Volney also mounts a claim about supposedly unnoticed killings by police officers. Surely the Justice Minister must have noticed, if not read, the large body of commentary that has been produced by the media, both as reportage and commentary, pointing to deep concerns about police shootings.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
If such media reporting and commentary escaped his attention, he must surely be aware of the establishment of the Police Complaints Authority and its work to investigate matters involving law officers using deadly force against others. How, then, could he claim that such killings have gone unnoticed?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
On the issue of editorial criticism of MPs and ministers, the MP for St Joseph seemed astonished that newspaper commentary could &ldquo;denigrate ministers of government.&rdquo; He must first make a distinction between justifiable criticism based on reality and denigration, which he is put out about.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Apart from the established right and responsibility of newspapers and media generally to comment and criticise when they see the need for it, Mr Volney, above all, as soon as he jumped into the political ring, was, to say the least, acidic in his criticisms and &ldquo;denigration&rdquo; of the PNM government of the time, from the Prime Minister down.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Was he then concerned about media criticism of MPs, a prime minister and government ministers? While he restrained himself from an all-out attack on the freedom of editorial commentators and of the press, the society must be a little concerned about the direction of his comments.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Having been out of the country during Mr Volney&rsquo;s outburst, it would be interesting to see how the substantive Prime Minister, Ms Persad-Bissessar, handles the matter now that she has returned home.</p>