What deal has Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday cut with Prime Minister Patrick Manning?

This is the question Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner asked yesterday, on the heels of a meeting between Panday and Manning at the Diplomatic Centre in St Ann’s on Tuesday, where both men agreed to work towards a new Constitution.

In an immediate response, Panday, speaking from his office at the Rienzi Complex, Couva, said Warner does not understand the Westminster system and his statement was evidence he was not fit to be a leader.

In a release yesterday, Warner criticised the meeting between Manning and Panday, describing such an alliance as ’unholy and poses a serious threat to democracy, as there becomes no obstacle to dictatorship and tyranny’.

Ironically, earlier this year, after a meeting between Manning and Warner, Panday had questioned whether a deal was cut between the two men, and alleged that it was one to ensure that Warner and the RamjackG faction destabilise the UNC, a claim Warner denied.

In his release yesterday, Warner questioned why Panday would want to negotiate on two pressing issues that the Government cannot move forward with unless they had Opposition support. These are the new constitution which will see the formation of an Executive President and legislation which will see the legality of the Special Anti Crime unit (SAUTT).

’Mr Panday has long sung the chorus that constitutional reform must not be piecemeal, but he has agreed to support Mr. Manning’s moves for Executive Presidency, even though the vast majority of the population is wary of the sweeping powers and immunities that come with that political model,’ Warner said.

’What is there to negotiate? There is nothing to discuss! The Government has conceded repeatedly that SAUTT is not a legal entity and that legislation must be brought to Parliament to correct this situation. Did Mr. Panday agree to go soft on this issue? If he did then that is a selfish disservice to the nation.’

He added, ’With the Government pinned firmly against the ropes on these two issues, one cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition would compromise on them, unless the trade-off is substantial. We must therefore ask, for what price was this slice of our democracy sold?’

In response to this, Panday said, ’First of all, a person who makes a statement like that clearly indicates that he has read nothing about the Constitution and he doesn’t understand how the Westminster system works, because under the Westminster system, the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister meet from time to time and I have met with Dr Williams and I have met with Mr Chambers and Mr Robinson and so on, that is the usual process.’

He added, ’If that person was Prime Minister he will not meet with the Leader of the Opposition and if he was leader of the Opposition he will not meet with the Prime Minister, such a person is totally unfit to lead.’