by Linda Straker
- On 31 July 2024 in the Cabinet, La Crette’s appointments were revoked, and he was relieved of his duties
- Governor-General was asked to revoke Senator La Crette’s appointment the following day
- La Crette’s decision not to engage in social media bantering allowed for deep reflection and concentration
Jonathan La Crette, the former government minister who was fired from his post as of 1 August 2024, said that his refusal to immediately speak up about this firing was a personal strategy in which he decided it was better to hold his peace and not engage in bantering on social media with political supporters.
“I decided to hold my peace and let the dust settle. I was not going to, at that time, banter with political party supporters on social media about what is and what is not, especially when you were not told why it is that you are being fired, and then you hearing varying narratives across the political spectrum about your firing,” La Crette said in an interview with the weekly Bubb Report, hosted by a Grenadian journalist residing in the USA.
“All I know is I walked into the Cabinet on 31 July, my appointments were revoked, and I was relieved of my duties,” he said, confirming that the cabinet meeting had Cabinet ministers and members of the National Executive of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) via video conferencing.
“So, with all that confusion taking place, I decided to recline and to do some deep reflection and some deep concentration, as it relates to where I have been placed because of the announcement, politically and personally,” he said. The exclusive interview was aired on social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook.
Taking place weeks after launching his own political party and approximately 10 months after him being fired, La Crette said, “Sooner rather than later I will definitely speak to the Grenadian people because I am aware of the fact that they are the ones responsible for the party being in governance and in the leadership of the country.”
Sharing details about the day he was fired, La Crette said that he was never given a reason by the Prime Minister and a meeting which was agreed to take place after the Prime Minister disclosed the firing at a news conference, never occurred.
On 1 August, Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell informed the nation during a news conference that he had asked the Governor-General to revoke Senator La Crette’s appointment. No specific reason was given for the termination other than Mitchell saying that he had lost trust and confidence in the senator.
“The reason for doing so that as Prime Minister, sitting in the Cabinet I formed the view that I had personally lost trust and confidence in Minister LaCrette in his capacity as a Minister and in those circumstances, I thought it was appropriate for me to inform him of that fact and to inform his fellow Cabinet colleagues,” the Prime Minister told reporters. “I will not get involved in the nitty-gritty of the details; they are not appropriate given the fact that it is a trust and confidence issue,” he added.
In the interview, Mr. La Crette made the following remarks which do not make logical sense
1. You stated that for an entire year you held forth, that we heard one side, and now you were here to give the side. But, this is not true. Your side is the first side we are hearing, because the Prime Minister only reported that you were released. And, even if he was pressed by the media, he refused to give details, claiming professionalism and respect for Mr. la Crette
2. You claimed that you were not told why you were fired, that once the PM informed you, that you wished them well, and was on your way out. You claimed that the PM asked you if you did not wish to know why he took the decision, but you left. That is not normal human reaction to a firing. Normally, the first thing is to find out why. In this case, the PM even had to ask you, but you left without knowing. How could you leave without finding out why, unless you already knew?
3. You claimed that after you left, the PM messaged you after to ask for a meeting, but by then, you heard of a press conference the next day, and wanted to wait to hear what would be said there. That too, is strange behaviour on your part. It was very logical for a press conference to be announced for the next day. It was also logical for the PM to, yet again, offer to meet with you to have a discussion, and it would have been better if that meeting preceded the press conference. I don’t understand why you had to wait to hear what would be said in the press conference? Because, if anything damaging and unfair was said, you could have called your own press conference to rebut.
4. You pleaded the distress in your personal life, and how the decision affected you. However, you mentioned opportunities, including Ambassador to Canada offered to you by the PM before, and you turned down. How many people are offered such prestigious positions?
Is it a case where Lacco says what he wants, when he wants; gets what he wants, where he wants; meets when he wants, where he wants? This is what is manifested here.
An advice, stay out of politics, you are too religious, and that does not mesh with politics.
In a democracy, members of the cabinet are chosen and released at the will of the Prime Minister. He has to have a great deal of confidence in the people he chooses, and especially in the case of people who were not elected, it should be an honour to serve. If the prime minister loses such trust in any member at any time, it is within his rights to end the tenure of that person. In a democracy, such as move should not cause the level of confusion it is causing today. The Prime Minister has handled it professionally, attempting to avoid all the public raucous, but it seems that all his efforts to raise the level of discourse in the country is met by resistance. There is a determined effort to keep us in the gutter. If, like Peter David, you cannot accept a basic Prime Ministerial decision, how could you present yourself to head the same democracy?