Dominica’s Prime Minister troubles: Will there be a Nixon moment?

It was a crisis that involved the abuse of power symbolized by illegal wiretapping, the compilation of enemies list, a slush fund to finance dirty political tricks, and lying, among other misdeeds. Congress was moving fast to impeach the president to save their constitution and their political culture.

Fortunately for the United States, its institutions of democracy were very developed and functioned independently of the executive branch. So when Nixon tried to save his political life by issuing orders to fire his attorney general so as to replace him with someone who was more sympathetic to Nixon, the order was refused.

The impasse prompted a group of elder statesmen, many of his own Republican party, to approach the beleaguered president with a plea to put the country and its democracy ahead personal ambition, and significantly, to resign from office, rather than put the country through the trauma of impeachment.

Nixon resigned in disgrace and the country was spared the trauma.

After listening to journalist Lennox Linton’s latest bombshell on Q95 in which it is alleged that the prime minister’s personal attorney, Steven Isidore, was effectively operating his own slush fund on behalf of the prime minister, paying large sums of money to individuals that may have violated the country’s money laundering laws and possibly confirming the prime minister’s ownership of real estate near Portsmouth that he previously denied, I could not help reaching the inevitable conclusion that we are now confronted with our own Watergate moment in Dominica.

The question we now face is: Will we have our own Nixon moment?

The circumstances surrounding the prime minister’s troubles are not new but the new details broadcast yesterday by Mr. Linton make it somewhat difficult for the prime minister or his alter ego, Senior Counsel Astaphan, to brush aside as enemy propaganda.

The image we see is that of a prime minister who is acting as if he is verily above the law, unconstrained by the constitution or the nation’s statues, as he prophetically avowed in a now famous line in the run up to the last general elections when his claim of illegibility to contest the elections was first challenged.

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the prime minister’s troubles is that we are now looking at a pattern of behavior, not just isolated incidents here and there. It is a pattern of behavior that involves personal ambition, an unfettered desire to accumulate personal wealth surreptitiously, and, most disturbing, the appearance of a conspiracy to evade the law through the operation of a slush fund to hide his activities.

By its very nature, the existence of a slush fund implies something fishy or illegal is going on and needs to be kept from the public eye. It is a mechanism to pay money under the table, to conduct business in such a way as to avoid public scrutiny. Money laundering laws are enacted to prevent this kind of activity which are typically the domain of those who operate outside the law.

Indeed, the news of the existence of a slush fund operated by the prime minister’s personal attorney raises the stakes in the ongoing investigation by the Integrity in Public Office (IPO) commission. When the commission meets later this month to examine the evidence against the prime minister it appears that the commission will have to expand the scope of its investigation to include the revelation of this slush fund.

Essentially, the commission itself will be on trial in the public’s mind as nothing short of a full blown investigation requiring all of its statutory powers, will be expected. Bank statements of the account operated by Mr. Isidore will have to be subpoenaed, at the minimum, as well as an investigation into the source or sources of the slush fund.

As investigations into the prime minister’s activities proceed, the larger contours or the full sweep of the cancer on the body politic is beginning to take shape. We are beginning to see, for instance, the rationale for the unusual security apparatus at the High Court including the unprecedented reach for judicial review in what looked a garden variety allegation of theft when an arrest warrant was issued against Mr. Isidore in a dispute with his former law partner, retired magistrate GON Emmanuel.

To date, this application for judicial review has stayed the proceedings against Mr. Isidore, an unprecedented action which has baffled some legal experts and advocates for fairness and equality before the law. Skeptics saw a troubling pattern evolving which could implicate powers higher than Mr. Isidore.

As our worst fears are coming through in the Isidore’s attempted arrest and subsequent revelations of his slush fund activities on behalf of the prime minister, a sense of dread and bad news to come is beginning to sink in. Where and how can all of this end?

Are we up to the challenge of dealing with our own Nixon moment? Do we have in the IPO, an institution strong enough to rise to the challenge? Is the public ready to take on the challenge of holding the prime minister’s feet to the fire?

And most important of all: Do we have the elder statesmen who are prepared to put the country, its constitution and its laws before political party and approach the prime minister with the inevitable message.

The message must be that we have come to a critical juncture in our journey where we must decide that for the sake of posterity, for the sake of preserving our democracy and our values, the current prime minister should step aside.

Are there men and women in this country who could pull off this Nixon moment? I believe the answer is yes. I could name names, but at this time, that would not be prudent.