WHEN A PM SOLD HIS CAR TO A DRUG LORD

PRIME Minister Patrick Manning responded in Parliament twice after the dramatic report about the sale of his car to a then-drug lord. 

“The Lord is my Shepherd,” Manning said in his emotional second address, that day in February 1994, clearly shaken by the TnT Mirror newspaper exclusive. 

I had produced the licensing certified copy confirming the sale of the Toyota Royal Saloon one month after Manning purchased the vehicle in November 1983, while he was Minister of Energy. 

Then, as now, there were lavish tax breaks for parliamentarians and prohibition on sale within a stipulated period. 

The tax ease-up reduced the cost of the car by 44 percent. 

Also, in a period when foreign exchange had almost dried up, Manning had to obtain official release of funds to import the vehicle from Japan. 

He saw the expose as “a strategy to discredit key institutions and individuals” and “a well-worn ploy of the international drug trade. 

“In this instance, I was targeted,” the shell-shocked PM said. 

None of that hyperbole was true. 

It was just a damn good story that any journalist – especially one in a progressive newspaper – would relish. 

Colleague Keith Shepherd ridiculed Manning, with a commentary bearing the headline: “Not this Shepherd!” 

The Prime Minister was “playing smart with foolishness,” Sheppy scoffed. 

A.N.R. Robinson, the then-previous Prime Minister, brought a motion of censure to Parliament and sought a public enquiry.    

Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, then an opposition heavy-hitter, wondered about links to money laundering. 

Dr. Keith Rowley, a minister in Manning’s neophyte administration, called Robinson “an educated hypocrite” who was involved in “a conspiracy to tarnish members of this government.” 

It would take more than Robinson’s motion “to interfere with the public perception of my leader,” Rowley said. 

Like everything in T&T, the matter went nowhere, even after Manning lost national office just over a year later. 

Some of the issues are relevant in light of the charges against parliamentarian David Lee. 

Are there any effective similarities, and, if so, why the difference in responses from law enforcement? 

Isn’t it a grievous offence for the leader of a nation to have a personal money transaction with a man who was described by Robinson as “a drug leader on several murder charges?” 

In the case of Lee, how do you prove that a non-Member of Parliament was the effective beneficiary of the tax breaks? 

Does the vehicle have to be parked in the MP’s garage for a certain number of days? 

Is it a crime if – like the illegal game of whe whe – there are no obvious victims? 

With fairly similar allegations against high-profile government Members of Parliament, are the authorities manipulating the police service to go against an opposition member? 

This is especially pertinent in light of a feeble Police Service Commission and an ineffective police chief. 

Also, note former police boss Gary Griffith’s claim that $42 million has been allocated by the government to probe high officials of the previous administration. 

Should police resources be better assigned to catch killers, bandits, and rapists, especially in one of the most murderous countries in the world?  

Could a country of grinding poverty afford luxury vehicle tax incentives to its elected officials? 

As Johnny Nash sang, “There are more questions than answers. 

“The more I find out, the less I know.”