Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: And as promised, we have a very special interview at this point in time as we say good morning and welcome to Mr. Robin Montano. He's joining us on ZOOM this morning. Hello. Good morning.
[00:00:20] Speaker A: Good morning. I can hardly hear you. Can you hear me?
[00:00:24] Speaker B: Yes, we are hearing you loud and clear.
[00:00:28] Speaker A: I can hardly hear you. You're very soft.
[00:00:31] Speaker B: All right, so we'll see if we could get that bit sorted on our end there. Is it a little bit better now?
[00:00:37] Speaker A: Yes, that is a lot better. Thank you.
[00:00:39] Speaker B: All right, so it's great to have you with us, Mr. Montana, of course, an attorney at law, a former senator as well. Welcome to Freedom Owner 6.5 FM. How are you?
[00:00:50] Speaker A: Well, I'm still alive, thank you very much.
[00:00:54] Speaker B: All right, great. So today we're speaking about the extension of the state of emergency.
But before we get to that, what were your initial thoughts when news came about that there would have been the declaration of this state of emergency?
[00:01:15] Speaker A: Well, on the one hand, let me put it to you this way. My feelings were mixed because on the one hand, I think that everybody is concerned about the crime situation in Trinidad and Tobago.
[00:01:31] Speaker B: Recording in progress.
[00:01:35] Speaker A: Hello.
[00:01:36] Speaker B: Yes, you can continue, Mr. Montana.
[00:01:39] Speaker A: Yes, as I was saying, I think on the one hand, I wasn't surprised in that everybody is concerned about the crime situation in Trinidad and Tobago.
And on the other hand, it was surprising in that there seemed to be no hint of this coming down.
So, you know, perhaps the question should be really asked, what are laws?
And a law is simply a rule by which the society has agreed to live with or live by.
For example, if the society decides in the morning to use a stupid example that everybody should, every man should wear green pants.
If you don't wear green pants, you can be locked up for a year.
Well, that is the law.
And you would imagine that there would be a certain amount of discussion beforehand.
On the other hand, there is a question of security, and there's a lot of information that the government would have through its security services.
I don't think that we have gotten very much information.
At least I have not got very much information as to why this state of emergency was necessary.
Does that answer your question?
[00:03:35] Speaker B: Well, we've been hearing from, I believe it would have been, the attorney general would have indicated that the nation's PRISM prison system would have been compromised. There's talk about some sort of syndicate, some sort of collaboration between inmates in quote, unquote, block or Building 13 that's more or less all that we've heard about the situation prompting this state of emergency.
Now, there was also been comments that based on the, the security threat and so on, certain sensitive information would be concealed at this point, based on the intelligence that they have. They don't want to have, you know, all of that information out in the public domain. How, how do you balance that sensitive information and also informing the population? As you said, there's a lot of ambiguity, you know, a lot of uncertainty on the outside in terms of the justification for this state of emergency.
[00:04:37] Speaker A: Well, the short answer to you is, first of all, that's a very good question.
And the short answer to you is that all governments, whether it's in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere, all governments constantly have to balance the need for sensitive information to be concealed and for the public's general right to know without.
Without details one way or the other, it is very difficult to, to be able to assess at this time what exactly is going on. Of course, that is what parliament is there for or is supposed to be there for.
And one can hope, one can only hope that the parliamentarians understand their duties, their rights and duties.
You know, this is the second state of emergency that we've had this year.
Now, perhaps it might be useful to understand that a state of emergency cannot last longer than six months in the aggregate.
And so therefore, when you have a state of emergency, certain civil rights are suspended. For example, if you were to get arrested this morning, your lawyers can bring a writ of habeas corpus, which means bring the body to the court, and you can. The court will then decide on the basis of the evidence that is presented, whether or not your arrest was legitimate or not or warranted.
With a state of emergency, your arrest cannot be questioned for six months.
And that is, that is the problem with states of emergency, that there can be, legitimately, people get locked up and have no way out. I do not understand what you're saying about having a state of emergency where the people are already locked up and in jail.
That a lot of sense for the declaration of a state of emergency.
However, I want to emphasize that I do not know and do not have the requisite information to be able to assess whether or not this state of emergency is justified or not.
I would like to think that it is justified, but I don't know.
It all depends.
[00:08:01] Speaker B: We've also been hearing statements coming out from various press conferences, and I believe the Attorney General and other members of the, of the administration indicating that these persons behind bars, these persons in Prison would have been working with persons on the outside for their, quote unquote, nefarious activities.
But we've not seen the 15 days in the first instance for the declaration of the state of emergency has gone. We are now into the extended period, I believe, for three months. In the first instance, we have not seen or heard anything about members of the public being involved in any sort of plot or any sort of action or conspiracy with these known and incarcerated or persons in remand that are in prison right now. Any thoughts on that?
[00:08:52] Speaker A: Well, yes, you know, the, the thing is that we haven't seen.
We haven't seen or heard of anybody being arrested under this state of emergency and the wide powers that exist.
Certainly looking at it from that point of view, one would have expected that there would have been some arrests by now.
I don't know.
And it is difficult, if not impossible to make any kind of reasonable comment on the situation without further details, and they are sadly lacking. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, again, is impossible to say.
[00:09:51] Speaker B: Now in terms of the issuance of this state of emergency, I believe the media asked if there would have been curfews and so on imposed, and the decision was made to not have those elements included into the state of emergency.
Based on the trajectory, the level of crime and criminality that exists in the country today and has continued to evolve over the last couple of weeks and months. Do you think personally that these restrictions in terms of time and movement should have been included in this state of emergency?
[00:10:31] Speaker A: Again, it is very difficult at this particular time to make any comments.
I mean, I could argue in favor of the innuendos in your question.
I could argue very strongly in, in their favor as well as I can argue against it.
The truth is, I don't know.
And we need.
I. I would argue only that we need to let a little time pass in order for us to, to be able to assess for ourselves what is going on and what, what the problem is.
Maybe, maybe we, we can find, what shall I put it? Maybe we, we can find some sense out of all this, but certainly we don't know enough and we do. We don't know of necessity what is going on behind the scenes.
I agree with the need for secrecy, but on the other hand, I also agree with the need for the public having a right to know.
At this stage of the game, it is almost impossible. You see, the state of emergency is supposed to, to take care of a particular situation.
For example, that there's been an earthquake or something like that, that there's a war on, or that or the third one is where there's a, where there's.
What is existing now.
That is to say a lot of confusion and a lot of crime.
One would have expected at this time that there would have been at least some arrests would have been made because the state of emergency. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this state of emergency has been in existence now for about three weeks, isn't that so?
[00:13:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I believe the declaration would have come out on the 18th. So we're just coming up to the end of the 15 day period in a couple days.
[00:13:14] Speaker A: As I said, about three weeks.
[00:13:17] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:13:17] Speaker A: And one would have imagined that at this time one would have seen or heard of certain arrests.
And if John Thomas, for example, is a criminal and a gang leader, but you, you haven't got enough evidence against him, then you can certainly pick him up.
Why haven't you picked him up?
There has to be a good reason for that.
[00:13:57] Speaker B: Now, during this, just for the record.
[00:14:00] Speaker A: By the way, I was making up the name John Thomas.
[00:14:04] Speaker B: Yes, A fictitious character.
[00:14:06] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:14:07] Speaker B: So in terms of the activities that have unfolded during this state of emergency, we've seen that several high risk prisoners have been moved to the Tetra Barracks detention facility.
And we are told that their attorneys and so on were asked to put on blindfolds when, when speaking to their, to their clients.
What are your thoughts as an attorney at law with this, this aspect of the development for this state of emergency?
[00:14:39] Speaker A: Well, let me put it to you this way. As an attorney, the first question I would ask is why, why do you want me to be blindfolded when I'm speaking to my client?
That, that to me sounds unreasonable, but if there's, if there's a good reason, then okay, fine. As an attorney I would comply with the reasoning, but, and I could also comply with the, the reasoning which says that I have to be blindfolded before I am taken to see my client because I don't know where he is.
And you know, I, I want to be able to see him, but I don't know. At the end of the day, there, there is too much.
My, my criticism is that there's too much going on that we don't know about and we are not able at this time to make any definitive comments either in favor or against.
One has to be, one has to be reasonable in all of the circumstances at the end of the day, which I, what I said at the beginning is what is the reason for laws?
And laws are simply for the well being of society. So using my green pants example, if the law, if we as a society agree that all men should wear green pants, then all men will have to wear green pants, even though that. That is patently silly.
Now, I'm assuming in giving this example that the green pants law is legitimate and within the constitution.
But if we don't like it as a society, that then we can let our representatives know that we don't like it and if necessary, vote them out in the next election.
If the greenpants issue is a big issue.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: Okay, now, do you think the. The issue of the blindfolds, do you think that that amounts to a breach of attorney client privilege?
[00:17:15] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I missed that.
Do I think that the. What is the breach of attorney client privilege?
[00:17:21] Speaker B: Yeah, the attorneys having to wear blindfolds.
[00:17:26] Speaker A: Well, most certainly it would. It would a pair on the surface, to me, unless you can give me a good reason, I would argue very strongly in favor of my being able to see my client.
If you have a good reason, then you must give it to me as an attorney.
[00:17:50] Speaker B: I think it begs the question, what would be a good reason? I mean, I could understand in terms of entering into the compound, you may not want to disclose or have many persons know exactly in which room or compartment or so on within the facility. But outside of that, when you're face to face with the client, what's the need for this blindfold?
[00:18:13] Speaker A: Well, exactly.
That's the first question I would ask. Why?
You know, I was taught once when I was a young lawyer that the most important question that a lawyer can ask his client is why?
Or can ask his accuser is why?
Why?
Why did you do this? Or why are you being arrested?
Why?
[00:18:48] Speaker B: Interesting developments. It's just about 7:41. Mr. Manzano, would you be open to taking a couple telephone calls from our listers?
[00:18:57] Speaker A: The short answer is yes.
[00:18:58] Speaker B: Okay, great. So we will open the phone line 627-322-3625-2257. You can join into the conversations and if you have your questions, you could ask our guest or attorney at law this morning, Robin Montana. Hello. Good morning.
[00:19:13] Speaker C: Good morning. Hold a chair. She's headed for the strawberry patch. Mr. Montano, I. I don't recognize your voice.
You know, you have to take care of yourself.
Now, I hear people questioning the rationale for the soe, but I heard the attorney General say that people were marked to be killed and they had to move swiftly. And the commissioner of police basically said the same thing.
And you know, I'm Going with that.
Now, I don't expect to see the documents. I do not expect to see to be sitting on the briefings. And I just have to go with that.
That's all I'm ever going to get.
So what are you asking for? What do you want to see?
My question to you, Mr. Montana. What do you want to see? More than we have already heard and seen. Thank you.
[00:20:07] Speaker B: Thanks for your call.
[00:20:09] Speaker A: Well, I think that the answer to that question is why are you. Why do you think it's necessary to blindfold me to talk to my client? If there is a. If you think that there is a possibility that I might kill him or I might be in league with other people who would want to kill him, then certainly I would require a certain amount of evidence to be put to me that. That.
That could convince me otherwise.
Remember that the standard of proof here is a reasonable one.
And it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's reasonable that I can think of no good reason why I would not be allowed to see and talk with my client.
If you can give me a good reason and if you think that it is a good reason because my client might be killed, well. All right.
I have to say that I respectfully don't agree with you.
[00:21:33] Speaker B: Thanks for respond. 627-3223-625-2257. Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning.
[00:21:40] Speaker C: Morning.
Mr. Mantano, one question.
[00:21:45] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
[00:21:47] Speaker C: Are you hearing me now?
Hello?
[00:21:51] Speaker A: Hello?
[00:21:52] Speaker C: Hello?
[00:21:53] Speaker B: So, shagonas, give the question and I'll repeat it for Mr. Montana.
[00:21:58] Speaker C: If you're in block 13 and you have no communication in the barracks.
[00:22:08] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:22:09] Speaker A: All right.
[00:22:09] Speaker B: Thanks for your call.
[00:22:10] Speaker A: Sorry, I didn't hear that.
[00:22:11] Speaker B: So what he's saying is that if there's no communication in block 13, how is it that they can call a state of emergency and then under that statement, they take them down to Tetron because of. With persons on the outside?
[00:22:30] Speaker A: I have no idea.
On the surface, it doesn't sound reasonable, but one would assume that there have to be good reasons for it.
Okay. If you're asking me to speculate on the reasons that I'm not prepared to.
[00:22:51] Speaker B: Do, let's take another call. Hello? Good morning.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:22:56] Speaker C: Mr. Montano, I trust you are hearing me.
The Attorney General was quite erudite when he stated that the prison Service have been compromised, and he believed that there are elements in the prison service that are not working in the best interest of the country.
The question I put to you Mr. Montano and the nation listening this morning.
Is the prison service the only element of our security services that has been compromised?
And if he as a legislator has knowledge of it, what are they doing about it? I put that to you.
[00:23:39] Speaker A: Good question.
I haven't got a clue.
I certainly don't have access to the information that the minister may have had to say that the prison service has been compromised.
And I certainly don't know of whether or not other aspects of the security system have been compromised.
I must say that I don't believe that they have been compromised, that the government security system has so completely broken down that the government does not have, that the government in power at the moment or any government has any, any, how should I put it, Any idea of what is going on or what might be going on?
I don't, I don't think so, but I don't know.
Your question, while it is a good one, begs an answer from people with, who have a lot more information than the information that I have.
[00:24:56] Speaker B: Great. Thanks. Thanks for your response. Let's see if we could get one more call or question. And 627-322-362-52257. Those are our studio numbers and of course, your messages on WhatsApp as well. 306-106-0625. Hello. Good morning.
[00:25:13] Speaker C: Good morning, Govind. Good morning, Mr. Mantan. Esteemed attorney question Robin is fine. Oh, does a blindfold sufficiently impede an attorney from carrying out his duties, from communicating with his client enough that he.
[00:25:41] Speaker A: Answer is that it could.
That's not a bad question at all.
But it could. You see, one of the things that an attorney will be looking at will be the body language of the, of the person that he is dealing with.
And if the person's body language is such that it is clear to a reasonable observer that the person is lying, the attorney is going to have a difficulty in being able to assess how to present that person's case. Remember that an attorney doesn't have to agree with or do anything that the client is asking.
All the client is asking is that his case be presented in the best possible way.
So it is difficult, if not impossible to be able to interview somebody without seeing them.
And I think if they, unless there's a good reason, and I cannot think of a good reason why people, attorneys should not be allowed to see their clients or see that they are not under some threat. For example, let us say, let us say that you're interviewing somebody and you're asking certain pointed questions and the, the, the client that you're interviewing has a gun pointed to his head.
Clearly that is under under duress. And whatever he's telling you will be under a certain amount of duress.
So you need to be able to see as well as hear the client.
Hopefully that answers your question. But I take your point, which is why I said that I didn't condemn it absolutely.
But certainly in general, and in general, there can be some serious objections raised.
Whether these objections at the end of the day are valid objections or not, it is impossible to say at this time without further information.
But as a generalization, yes, an attorney should be allowed to see his client.
[00:28:49] Speaker B: Well, Mr. Manzano, unfortunately we are out of time for interview this morning. It's been a pleasure speaking with you on Freedom 106.5 FM and we look forward to further discussions and interactions with you on various topics. I want to thank you so much for your time today.
[00:29:05] Speaker A: Anytime.
You're more than welcome.
[00:29:08] Speaker B: So that wraps up our interview with teeny Robin Montana right here on Freedom 106.5. That's them.
[00:29:14] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
