Senior Reporter
Leader of Government Business Barry Padarath has fired back at the Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), over its demand for Housing Minister David Lee to step aside from his ministerial portfolio while his criminal proceedings continue, accusing the Opposition of hypocrisy.
The latest exchange comes after Opposition Chief Whip Marvin Gonzales called on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to remove Lee from Cabinet following Wednesday’s High Court ruling, which cleared the way for the prosecution against the minister to continue.
But responding to questions from Guardian Media yesterday, Padarath dismissed Gonzales’ demand, labelling it as ironic.
“The Prime Minister has already spoken to these issues months ago. Marvin Gonzales calls for Lee’s removal while he, Gonzales, serves as the chairman of the PNM, a party currently embroiled in a multimillion-dollar explain your wealth scandal, is ironic. Let that sink in,” Padarath said.
He argued that if Gonzales’ position were applied consistently, the entire PNM parliamentary bench would have to resign.
“Marvin should eat some parsad and enjoy his Divali, clearly he has nothing useful to do,” Padarath added.
Gonzales, however, insists the PNM’s position is rooted in ministerial accountability and not a presumption of guilt.
Speaking with Guardian Media, the Opposition Chief Whip said any minister facing serious criminal charges should not remain in public office pending the determination of the matter before the courts.
He said should Lee refuse to resign voluntarily, Persad-Bissessar has a clear duty to advise President Christine Kangaloo to revoke his ministerial appointment.
Gonzales stressed that the Opposition’s position does not amount to a finding or presumption of guilt against Lee, who remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.
However, he argued that the integrity of public office, public confidence in institutions and standards of ministerial accountability must be preserved.
“These principles cannot be sacrificed for political convenience,” Gonzales said.
He also pointed to former PNM ministers Franklin Khan, Marlene McDonald and Eric Williams as examples of ministers who, according to him, were required to step aside from public office when confronted with criminal charges, pending the determination of their respective matters.
Gonzales said the same standards must apply to UNC ministers.
“The UNC cannot be permitted to abandon established principles of ministerial responsibility simply because those principles have now become politically inconvenient,” he said.
He warned that a failure by the Prime Minister to act would represent a serious dereliction of her duty and disregard for the integrity of public office.
The controversy also revives questions about Persad-Bissessar’s own approach to ministerial accountability, particularly when compared with her handling of former National Security minister Austin “Jack” Warner in 2013.
At that time, Persad-Bissessar said she had accepted Warner’s resignation because he had become a major distraction to the work of her then coalition People’s Partnership government.
Warner’s resignation followed the release of a Concacaf Integrity Committee report detailing allegations of financial mismanagement and fraud.
Efforts to reach Persad-Bissessar and Lee yesterday were unsuccessful.
Analysts divided on what PM’s should do
Political scientist Dr Bishnu Ragoonath, meanwhile, believes Persad-Bissessar is not compelled to remove Lee, although the ruling presents her with two political options.
“The court has ruled. As to the politics, this can now play two ways, the PM can ask Mr Lee to resign as a minister and clear his name and then return or she can leave him there,” Ragoonath said.
He pointed out that Lee was elected to Parliament and would retain his seat as an MP even if he relinquished his ministerial appointment.
He emphasised that the political significance of the ruling must be considered in the context that Lee has a charge pending against him, but has not been convicted.
Ragoonath said he expects the PNM to use the development to discredit the UNC, particularly on issues of ethics, integrity and governance.
However, he does not believe the Opposition’s demands will necessarily force Persad-Bissessar to act.
He said the question of political accountability remains critical, but the UNC could adopt the position that there is no compelling reason for action until a judgment is delivered in the criminal proceedings.
Ragoonath also suggested the Government could point to previous accountability controversies involving the PNM to defend its handling of the matter, allowing Lee to remain in Cabinet until the court proceedings conclude.
He further questioned whether the Government would feel sufficiently pressured to address public confidence concerns, given that it still has more than three years remaining in its current term.
Ragoonath suggested that campaign finance legislation could eventually bring renewed attention to questions of ethics and integrity, but he does not expect the current controversy to necessarily prompt an immediate change in the Government’s position.
He also raised concerns about the pace of the judicial process, suggesting that Lee’s matter may not be heard for another two to three years. That, he said, could leave the Government facing an extended period of political scrutiny over the Housing Minister’s continued presence in Cabinet.
Political analyst Dr Shane Mohammed, however, believes calls for Lee’s removal are premature, arguing that Wednesday’s judgment does not establish the minister’s guilt. He said Lee retains the right to appeal Justice Westmin James’s decision and pursue further legal avenues.
“The ruling doesn’t say anything against David,” Mohammed said, adding that the judgment essentially allows the prosecution process to continue after the court found that the Director of Public Prosecutions acted within his legal authority.
He cautioned against interpreting the dismissal of Lee’s legal challenge as an indication of guilt.
“But just to equate that he’s guilty is not fair, it’s not right, it’s premature,” Mohammed said.
On the calls for Persad-Bissessar to intervene, Mohammed maintained that the decision to remove or reassign a minister rests with the Prime Minister and should not be dictated by public pressure.
He said if Persad-Bissessar decides to take away Lee’s portfolio, it should be because she believes he is no longer suited to the position or that a Cabinet reshuffle is necessary, rather than because of pressure from critics.
Mohammed noted that the Prime Minister has already expressed confidence in Lee. He also accused some critics of using the controversy as an opportunity to undermine the Government’s popularity and stability.
“This is cheap politics by saying that the Prime Minister needs to do nothing unless she decides that this is what she thinks is in her best interest and the Cabinet going forward,” he said.
History of matter
The controversy is not new. Last October, Persad-Bissessar again defended Lee in the matter, affirming that he would remain in her Cabinet despite mounting calls for his removal after he was granted $1 million bail on fraud-related charges.
Lee and businessman Hugh Leong Poi were charged with conspiring to defraud the State in connection with the importation of a Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG. The State alleged that Lee falsely claimed ownership of the vehicle to benefit from parliamentary tax exemptions.
Lee was initially charged in September 2022 with misbehaviour in public office and conspiring with Leong Poi to defraud the State of $1,416,292.65 in tax exemptions.
The latest legal setback came on Wednesday, when Justice Westmin James dismissed Lee’s application for judicial review and constitutional redress.
The judge found that Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard acted within his legal authority when he applied for a warrant for Lee’s arrest and committal for trial, after the minister was discharged at the end of a preliminary enquiry.
Justice James ruled that the relevant provisions of the former Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act remained applicable to proceedings already instituted against Lee and that the warrant issued by Justice Hayden St Clair-Douglas was lawful.
The ruling removes a major legal obstacle to the prosecution proceeding against Lee and his co-accused.
