Dear Editor,
As carried in the local media, there is a claim by Mr Aubrey Norton that he was bullied into a handshake by the President. Now, I am not sure if the media is correct, but I think they meant to say that he was startled by the fact that the President of this country could have thrown out the olive branch and shaken his hand, and not the bullying nonsense that the Opposition Leader is suggesting.
In either scenario, Norton comes across as the most ludicrous Opposition Leader ever. Let’s face it, here we have a grown man in his sixties making such a foolish and nonsensical remark; it is way beyond me. I am therefore inclined to ask the question: Why couldn’t the Opposition have chosen a better leader? Did they carry out a proper search? Are they aware of the sure qualities of a person vying for leadership of the Opposition? I am talking about someone who has the soundness of character, and one who can set forth visionary leadership.
Aren’t there, in the Opposition, other available personalities who are worthy, who could have been considered? These are searching questions one might be tempted to ask when one considers the crazy antics exhibited by Norton. He is very base, to say the least, where leadership material is concerned.
To choose someone like Aubrey Norton tells us that the Opposition is bereft of leadership material for that position. The guy embarrasses himself at every turn, and the entire Opposition goes down with him. Even when he speaks anything of substance, one finds it difficult to decipher the logic of his missive. For starters, his latest spur-of-the-moment, enthusiastic affirmation of the statutory appointments of the Chief Justice and Chancellor leaves one to wonder. Weren’t the substantive appointments of these two ladies denied due to the direct diabolical work of the PNC? And the answer is yes, the obstruction of these ladies being confirmed to their posts was as a direct result of the PNC’s shenanigans. The PNC were more interested in feeling out the justice’s political leanings, rather than making them substantive in their positions, something that is illegal when considering constitutional appointments.
They were too busy sorting out us and the theory. This is an age-old PNC strategy when considering persons for constitutional positions. They are of the opinion that those positions should be made available to yes men and women, or persons who may make decisions based on “political correctness”, rather than decisions based on law.
According to the PNC, constitutional appointments must be based on the PNC’s party control of the judiciary, and whatever the decisions emanating therefrom must be according to party dictates, and not on law. This is a pretty embarrassing and demeaning position to place the judiciary, where the integrity of judges would be put on the line all because a political party colours their decisions.
There was no independence of the judiciary during those days. And this comes as nothing new, because the founder leader of that party, Burnham, did the very same thing when the party’s flag was flown above the courts, showing clearly who controlled decisions there.
Since 2016, those appointments should have been made substantive. Why this wasn’t done is anybody’s guess; it was all due to the PNC’s backward views when it comes to these appointments. But those days are long gone, as we look forward to the new dispensation of fairness and transparency in the judiciary.
So, for this Opposition Leader to come out saying that he is in full support of the two judges is almost hypocritical, to say the least. Norton has to do better than this, educated and enlightened individuals are watching.
Respectfully,
Neil Adams
