IN THE PICONG COURT OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Case No. 30-04-2026/A JUSTICE PICONG, presiding
THE STATE vs. THE CONCEPT OF “SOON COME”
Court is called to order. Justice Picong enters wearing a robe that’s too big and a wig that’s seen better Carnivals. The defendant — the abstract noun phrase “Soon Come” — has not appeared. It has, however, sent a message saying it would be here. Eventually.
JUSTICE PICONG: Bailiff, is the defendant present?
BAILIFF: No, m’lord.
JUSTICE PICONG: Surprising no one. Read the charges.
CLERK: The defendant, “Soon Come,” is charged with the following: One. Aggravated procrastination across the territorial waters of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Barbados. Two. Conspiracy to delay three desalination plants. Three. Failure to deliver on a 2018 manifesto pledge regarding pothole repairs. Four. Loitering with intent in approximately fourteen separate Cabinet meetings.
JUSTICE PICONG: Quite a docket. Prosecution.
THE PROSECUTION OPENS
MS. DOOKERAN, KC: M’lord, the Crown will demonstrate that “Soon Come” is not, as it claims, a benign cultural expression. It is a structural participant in regional governance. It attends meetings. It signs memoranda. It has, in some cases, its own letterhead.
JUSTICE PICONG: Strong opening. Continue.
MS. DOOKERAN: We will show that “Soon Come” was personally responsible for the delay of the Barbados merit-based immigration framework, the lifting of the Jamaican fuel cap on the Wednesday rather than the Tuesday, and — most damningly, m’lord — the failure to appear of all witnesses in three pending Trinidadian commissions of inquiry.
JUSTICE PICONG: The mind boggles. Defence?
THE DEFENCE OPENS
MR. ALI, SC: (rising slowly, taking his time) M’lord, my client cannot be present today.
JUSTICE PICONG: Of course it cannot.
MR. ALI: My client wishes to convey, however, that it WILL be present. Soon. It is on its way.
JUSTICE PICONG: When?
MR. ALI: Soon, m’lord. It comes.
JUSTICE PICONG: I am beginning to suspect, Mr. Ali, that your client is not coming at all.
MR. ALI: With respect, m’lord — that is precisely my client’s defence. The contention is not that “Soon Come” delays. The contention is that “Soon Come” is the expectation of arrival, not the arrival itself. Without the expectation, m’lord, what motivates the catchment pond to stay full? What motivates the breadfruit to ripen? What motivates the cabinet to schedule a follow-up?
JUSTICE PICONG: (considering) The defence raises a philosophical point.
MS. DOOKERAN: (rising) M’lord, philosophy is not a defence to procurement delay.
MR. ALI: With respect, in the Caribbean, m’lord, philosophy is every defence to procurement delay.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE PICONG: I have heard enough.
The court finds the defendant, “Soon Come,” guilty of aggravated procrastination, but acquits on the philosophical-defence ground regarding the catchment pond. The court orders that “Soon Come” produce itself before this bench by the end of the next fiscal quarter.
If it does not appear, the court will issue a bench warrant. The bench warrant will, naturally, also soon come.
Court adjourns. Bailiff closes. Bench warrant pending. The defendant, the case, and the file all soon come.
Picong Court is a satirical voice column. Justice Picong, Ms. Dookeran KC, and Mr. Ali SC are fictional characters. Views expressed are dramatic exaggerations for comedic effect.