Posted on

Mottley missing mark on Speaker


Mottley missing mark on Speaker

Social Share

I WAS LISTENING to an interview with Mia Mottley one night. At the end of it I concluded that here was no shallow opportunist but a profound thinker, a strongly motivated idealist and someone capable of thinking “outside of the box”.

Nevertheless, in spite of my high opinion of her, I have concluded that in the instance of this latest conflict of opinion in the House of Assembly, that the Government has the better case.

The practice of law is not a matter of politeness nor of doing what people customarily deem to be “proper”. I have always regarded the practice of law as essentially an adversarial business. No one should have to depend upon the kindness or decency of the opponent.

Every point must be established formally by what all can accept to be reasonable means (especially by the judge or the magistrate). It is not a matter of chance at any point; there are no friends in this.

There is a legal maxim “ubi jus remedium” – “for every wrong there is a remedy”. If, therefore, the Opposition in the Lower House of Parliament has an adequate case against the thus particular Speaker, let them go through the requisite steps to bring him to book. But do not demand that he remove himself because be doesn’t seem to be nice (as far as they are concerned).

Don’t get rid of someone because of accusations that have not been proven to be valid. The law says: “A man is innocent unless proven guilty.”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Maximum 1000 characters remaining in your comment.