Monthly Archives: September 2012

Compare and Contrast : A Rally Go Round!

Posted on by

Budget Matikor programme. Photo E. Pantomime

I from Central….Couva North. Basdeo Panday Country. I from a constituency where if Panday sneeze, 15, 000 does show up to hand him a handkerchief and ask, “Yuh alright, Boss?” Is so Couva North stop. We did real like Panday. So when after 3pm on a Saturday evening in the heart of Chaguanas I could breeze down the highway and find a park and stroll into Mid Centre Mall Carpark for a  Budget Maticor know is water more than flour and like they aint put enough dhal in the loya!

Crowd and Venue

The thickest the crowd ever got. Photos by E. Pantomime

The edges of the crowd and how the rest of the carpark looked.

The other side of the stage. That camera rig isn’t cheap to rent.

Crowd size I know is important to a lot of people who currently observing the political situation because it will help to tell us where the electorate’s head is at…so let me begin by describing yesterday’s lay out. The UNC used the part of the Mid Centre Carpark that is at the back of the mall and Hi Lo. The main stage for the MPs was at the eastern exit, the stage for performers was behind Marios. It was two massive dome stages, the kind HD normally uses for Machel Monday. Two of those in the Mid-Center Car Park takes up a lot of room. Couple those two stages with another smaller stage for their control crew and media cameras; and two more small stages for camera men and equipment and you are beginning to get an idea of how contained the space was for the event. Then along the fence area were food stalls and then on the end that is normally the main entrance to that car park where the security booth is were the portable toilets. My point is, that you can’t think of the entire eastern car-park as free and open because there were a lot of things crammed into the space…..the only thing not crammed in was people. Even with all of those stages, stalls and booths in there the space could have held a crowd of 20,000 and that would have made it difficult to move. Movement yesterday was never difficult. Only in front of the actually stage was the crowd thick…but not so thick that you couldn’t walk through and make your way to the front and take pictures. There were TOP supporters, brown band maxi taxis from the south heartland, Collin Partap had a flag crew there, as did the AG, and Ramona Ramdial. The bussed in CEPEP crews were pretty obvious.

Giveaways for the crowd…

When you consider the size of the mandate this government holds; when you consider the size of its support base; the resources it put out yesterday and all week long you get confused. Kamla announced since last Sunday that she holding a Pre-Budget Rally. There were countless radio ads for an entire week. Across FB you had Ministers using their walls to rally people, Surujrattan Rambachan and Anand Ramlogan’s walls were the ones I noted. Even COP councillors got in on the action promoting Budget Matikor. I expected to see the crowds Warner boasted about. 30-40,000. At a generous guess I’d say the crowd was about 13,000 at its peak.  And in all likelihood it was less than that. Later on that evening when i went to Price Plaza just a stone’s throw away from Mid Centre, that mall’s carpark and business places had more people going about their month-end business than Budget Matikor. Not even the neighbours on my street, who can easily be described as UNC Die Hards bothered to attend the rally.

Now this can be interpreted in multiple ways: the have complete faith in their government, or they have become disenchanted…..make of that what you will.

Where for me things got exciting is as usual the dynamics on the stage and the content of the speeches.

IT was pure UNC attack mode with Kamla warning about a gathering storm, saying the lines are drawn and telling the crowd they know who the enemy is. She reminded me of Capildeo asking the DLP to attack the PNM in the 1961 elections. We going good in this place!

You had Suruj Rambachan further extending the dependency syndrome that the UNC deplored 2 years ago by announcing 6000 jobs in short term programmes coming up. This seems to be their way of shoring up votes for THA and Local Government Elections. So if you thought the 10 Days Mania was something specific to PNM or Afro-creole people….think again. UNC pushing the 10-Days mentality hard….change? No, EXCHANGE!

Marlene Coudray got dragged up onto the stage too. And it was a painful thing to see. Coudray’s speech delivery was heart rending. There was no pep, no heart, no belief in her hype even. She seemed to be a woman still deep in mourning. And to have dragged a woman who has recently lost a child in such a way out this weekend to simply say to the crowd that Gender will be bringing new programmes onstream shows you just how insensitive and manic this government has become. The PM could have made that announcement herself and left Coudray to mourn in dignity. But this is a Government that will send 5 men to sit on television and gossip like vicious, bitter women about Rowley’s parking habits, and to attack Asha Javeed.

The AG was brought on to bark and growl….and Anand has effectively become the UNC’s version of a rottweiller. He yelled at the crowd that he not moving, not leaving. Said again and again that Rowley was a liar….but never once did he actually touch Section 34, the time line and his role in piloting the Bill. He went on to list all of the people he will be taking out lawsuits against….and I am still waiting to find out if we have benefitted from any of his lawsuits to date? Any? Has anyone been charged? Made to serve jail time?

Moonilal, announced as a man with more degrees as Rowley, then came on stage to prove just how dunce he really is. Within mere minutes of coming onstage Moonilal went on to state that Rowley got no signatures on his petition and handed the ag President a bag of paper. I was willing to forgive that lie on the basis og politicking….then Moonilal decided to play the ass with national history….a feature with this government. A people so insecure about their position and heritage here that they have to lie and re-invent history. Moonilal told the audience that Adrian Cola Rienzi founded the OWTU….not quite Mooni. Cola was its first sitting president when Butler had to go into hiding to avoid arrest. Butler still is and will always be the founder of that Union. But you see, when you don’t know, and you drunk in a fete, you will listen and applaud anything without questioning it. And that’s the kind of voter base this party is encouraging. Change? EXCHANGE!

After Moonilal we had speeches from Ramadhar, who spent time talking about Section 34 and its fallout in code and then exhaling with relief and sitting down after warning us to not repeat 1990. Too late Prakash…and your speeches at these rallies don’t actually constitute new politics. You have failed. Go to the back of the class.

In the wake of Ramadhar we had three asses follow: Ahsworth, NJAC and Warner. Their specific purpose was to recite Psalms 23, remind the audience that no murders had taken place in Morvant/Laventille for 20 days  (until last night) and that better days are coming. Tedium and boredom.

Then came DJ Larry Howai, the person I had shown up to hear…..not the conch shells and the free vuvuzelas that were handed out. And Howai’s comments were mundane at best: improved healthcare, education, lower food prices, make groceries more affordable and help people have more money to spend in groceries. No details on how these things are going to be improved or whether money spent on these areas last year were well spent. After Howai’s speech I am convinced that the thrust of Monday’s Budget will be to distract the population with focussing on decreased food prices by November 15th, and there may well be a couple stings in its tail. So look out for what may happen to gas subsidies, utility rates and the property tax.

The highlight of the evening was the PMs announcement of No Vat on food items….and my brain went fuzzy for a minute because under the PNM  between 2002 – 2007 VAT was removed from many food items. The list goes:

CONSUMER ITEMS THAT CARRY NO VAT • unprocessed food of a kind used for human consumption; • rice; • flour; • milk in any form, including processed and tinned milk; • margarine; • bread; • baby formulas and baby milk substitutes. • cheese and curd; • corned beef; • curry; • fresh butter; • peanut butter; • table salt; • salted butter; • tinned sardines; • smoked herring; • toilet paper; • yeast; • baking powder; • pasta, whether or not cooked or stuffed (with meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagna, gnocchi, ravioli and cannelloni; • cane sugar; • cocoa powder, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter; • coffee; • mauby; • orange juice; • Herring; • Tuna; • Mackerel; • Ghee; • soya-bean oil; •) maize (corn) oil and its fractions; • sesame oil and its fractions; • chicken sausage, canned; • salami sausages; • icing sugar; • preparations of malt extract; • corn flakes; • biscuits, unsweetened; • grapefruit juice; • vanilla essence; • soy sauce; • tomato ketchup; • prepared mustard; • mineral water; • ordinary natural water; • aerated beverages; • orange drink; • grapefruit drink; and • vinegar

So then on what items is Persad-Bissessar’s government removing VAT on?

Her most desperate attempt at attacking Rowley last night was in the form of a cheque that was signed by Duprey to the PNM for party financing. The link that our Silkened PM fails to make with her cheque revelation is this….Rowley links the cheque on May 18th from Steve Ferguson to Section 34….can the PM show how the PNM when in Government colluded to free criminals? Change? This Section 34 issue is even worse than Exchange!

In summation Budget Matikor was a real let down. The familiar refrain of Blame the PNM, and anything but the PNM, and Make Sure and Don’t Vote Back the PNM was the message of the day. This wasn’t about the Budget…it’s not about food prices. It was entirely about attacking the PNM, pandering to their voter base and trying to distract from the crime of Section 34, the declining economy and the sting that is coming in this Budget’s tail. Oh, and it was about attacking the PNM, just in case you missed it in all the previous speeches!

At the end of the day what the PM and her Cabinet assured us of yesterday is that she is no longer listening to the people, she’s too busy drinking her Kool Aid mixed with Vodka!

De Vice Cyah Done

About these ads

Budget Matikor!

Posted on by

Budget Matikor- adjectival noun to describe a party that prepares you for sex. etymology, English and Bhojpuri. Refers to Matikor night in traditional Hindu weddings when the young bride to be is prepared for her upcoming wedding and wedding night. Usually involves, food, dancing and alcohol. Budget Matikor is a party thrown by the PP to soften the people up for the bull the budget will put on us. Usage: Is Budget Matikor in we pweffen this weekend!

I just finish bag about 500,000 pholourie with some watered down pommecythere chutney. Just now me and Ambassador Baps going and booojay some lawah because it is Budget Matikor!

 

Yes folks, the pre-Budget Rally to help us forget that Kamla and her Cabinet tried to free Ish and Steve with Section 34….and to grease us up to take the bull that will be Budget 2012/2013 is under way.

The CEPEP Workers Ready!

The Flags Ready!

The Ipads Ready!

Larry Ready!

Keshorn Ready!

The stage is in front of us time to get advantageous, rape the treasury and pump we flag!

Mind you, I hearing that the headliner act, Mr Heh Haaaa might be missing ah fete….we go see if he will let Miss Must Fete party without him tonight.

 

But in all seriousness folks we need to assess a few things.

Trinidad and Tobago, the land of 9 days wonders has broken that trend with Section 34, more than 20 days have passed and we still vexed as ever about the fast one this government try to pull on us and the constant lies, half truths and misdirections they keep pulling out of hats. Instead of Kamla Persad-Bissessar womanning up and telling the country the truth she gives us 30 minutes of televised lies in a speech and then tells Ernie Ross to handle the PR and marketing for the next week. Then in that week you have her bloggers attacking people using racist or violent language to do so. I see on Suruj Rambachan page they called Rowley Rawan…the old Hindu standby for insulting anyone of afro-creole descent….liken them to the greatest villain in the Ramleela, ent? One wonders if Warner will be given the role of Hanuman or Ram in this epic, given his proximity to Sita….

So, in this past week anyone who questioned the Government’s role in passing Section 34 was attacked, called racist, threatened with violence. Reporters who were doing their job and investigating and probing public officials were targetted and attacked by no less than the Minister of National Security….imagine Jack Warner has surpassed Manning for aggression and rumours of corruption! Media workers have been threatened with having the details of their personal lives and sexual orientations revealed….all in an attempt to intimidate them and make them cower before the might of the PP. A coalition government that Prakash Ramadhar remains committed to.

Well Mr Warner, let me save you the harassment. I am a try-sexual. I will try anything once except you and your stinking government…..and I put high on that list Doopeesingh, Roodimonster, &&, and yourself! Print that son…and keep harassing me.

What continues to bemuse me is the behaviour of UNC supporters, rabidly lashing out at all and sundry in defence of their party, and in defending their party they are defending and supporting shit! Not a group will stand up and say to Kamla and her small goal side ENOUGH! Not one of them will say to her publicly, this is wrong, you are hurting the nation…..not one of them will put country before tribe and yet they continue to carry the privilege of being called citizens.

In their bid for ethnic dominance in a multi-ethnic space they have lost sight the rights of other groups…..every creed and race can only have an equal place here, after they have had their fill…..tsk tsk UNC/COP….you will suffer for your greed. Mark my words….and I will write the obituary!

So today we have a fete…because Miss Must Fete needs her weapons of mass distraction…it’s the only way she can rule (not lead…never lead…and I point fingers now at the local Feminazis who have supported her, continue to support her and willingly line up for National Awards and yet never once speak about against the foolishness).

Today we will hear about all the good the Party has done.

Today we will hear about Manning, Rowley, Hart and how TheVote for It Too!

Today we will hear Howai deliver a revised budget, because with the country vex so, Kamla will try to give an elections budget of goodies and the treasury cannot afford it.

Today folks, we will hear our Budget be delivered at a fete!

We won’t hear them account for their spending of the last year…and remember they ased for money 2 more times after the intial budget and still went over budget in several ministries. We won’t hear any analysis of last year’s spending or how we are going to weather the economic storm that is here…..the drizzle done coming down….

We won’t hear how much this week’s public broadcast on all local stations and today’s Budget Matikor costing the tax payers…..instead we will hear that the Partnership is strong and LOOK AT PEOPLE! And we have a bigger crowd than Rowley….because political dick measuring is the level of responsibility that we have put into office.

We have gotten a pack of rotten, sickening spoilt brats as a government and they need to be disciplined.

But there is a shift in the winds folks….the citizens brought it on….the government is desperate. In their backrooms and corridors the Jahaji Desi’s are frightened. The UNC supporters are frightened. The COP remain helpless…content to guzzle what they can for as long as they are allowed to guzzle…..but the citizens are waking up.

I will be at Budget Matikor…look out for the videos as I post them up on Twitter and FaceBook and Veetle.

De Vice Cyah Done!

…About that Planass Video

Posted on by

More than a week has passed since the video of a Minister’s son planassing a man made news. TV6 was the first station to air it sometime late last week. And then for days things went quiet. At the beginning of this week  it was revealed that after doing the police report, and getting a medical report done, Mr Wight, the victim in the video waited on police action. Up to this morning, no one knows what action has taken place, but we do have an assurance from the Trinidad and Tobago’s Police Service frontman and fall guy that “the police are looking into it.”

What exactly does that mean?

We’ve all seen the video. Gregory Wight is clearly attacked in full view of bystanders by an overweight man who was driving a pick up. Minister of Education, Tim Goopeesingh has admitted it is his son. Yet more than a week since the event, and no real action has been taken by the police.

In an online conversation with the victim’s wife she revealed that the medical they had insisted on to prove that MR Wight had been planassed had not been collected by the police as of Tuesday of this week gone. Further, when they asked whether the suspect had been questioned the police’s response  was that the officer who had to conduct the interrogation was in Tobago, and did they, the victims, have an address for the suspect to pass on to the police?

This is the kind of thing that would make anyone pack up and leave this place for many reasons. The Wights are citizens here, tax payers; they give back to society. It’s only expected that the services our tax dollars support give back to us.

But we live in Trinidad and Tobago a place where policing is not a service, it is merely a force….and an unknowable one at that. Perhaps we need to stop calling them the Police Service and return to calling them the Police Force. Who are they protecting and serving? OR maybe the better question is what.

They have a video, showing the entire event. They know who the suspect is and how to find him….and yet an arrest is still to be made.  Everyone knows it’s because Shane Aleong is a minister’s son. The government, through the Police Service is trying to deny this, exclaiming all over the papers that it won’t be swept under the rug….well then prove it and arrest Shane so that charges can be laid. Of course with our luck his dad will delay the trial for ten years and then resurrect Section 34 to have him released.

Police laziness and incompetence is the main issue here, but it is being supported by a few other things that no one wants to discuss. Gregory Wight is seen as privileged because of his complexion and the socio-economic group he belongs. In pockets and corners on FB you had people of several other ethnicities saying, “I wasn’t taking no talk from no white man, in this day and age. he mighta collect  a slap from me doh, not ah planass.”

It tells you something about the malaise here that after all this time, and all the assertions that we are a rainbow nation, and all “o” we is one; that one member of this country can’t disagree with another member of this country and it not boil down to race. Wight’s complaint about diesel fumes while eating his doubles became a “massa vs labourer” issue why? Because of deeply ingrained insecurities, maybe. And then you have people irresponsibly writing and saying that Wight called Aleong a “gutter coolie”. Where’s the evidence of that? I don’t want to call anyone a liar, but the video doesn’t support it, and until there is evidence that Aleong responded to a racist slur, what the entire world see is an overweight, unkempt young man pouring out his rage on an elderly gentleman.

The slowness of the police too may well be underpinned by this attitude of “white people must pay”. I can see them now, grinning and laughing to themselves after Wight made the report. Ketching real kicks off the planass story.

I’ve been on the receiving end of the thing called police service here. I’ve been robbed several times and kind citizens have helped me retrieve my items. The last robbery occurred in the middle of the State of Emergency last year that was used as a crime solving tool. I was on the Avenue at 7pm, not a police officer or patrol in sight….because they had no patrol vehicles….and my Blackberry was stolen. I made a report, they sent me to the Cyber Crime Unit. When I got to where Cyber Crime was alleged to be housed I was told that they don’t have a Cyber Crime Unit. I went home and using the software available to me located my phone. I told the police where the phone was located. they told me they couldn’t go and retrieve it.

I hope to high heavens that Gregory Wight gets more satisfaction than I did from the force that is our Police Service.

De Vice Cyah Done!

Who is Kamla Sozier?????

Posted on by

Who is Keyser Soze? The movie The Usual Suspects tells the story of a crime. It’s key feature is a long convoluted series of events, with a confusing story and timeline, and so many players that makes it hard for you to figure out who the criminal is. Everything hinges on whether you believe the character telling the story: a criminal himself and the lone survivor of a drug deal gone sour.

The crime we are dealing with is legislation gone sour and 18 days later nothing adds up except the accounts ledgers for pre-Budget Rallies.

Bear with me as I try to retrace some steps. On Sunday September 9th, the Guardian prints a story that says “Ish and Steve” are going to walk free based on a law that was proclaimed on the evening of August 30th. On Monday the 10th, several persons petition the court under this very Act, referred to popularly as the Indictable Offences Act. On that same day an article appears in the Express by Clarence Rambharat that explores Clause 34 of the Act that will help “Ish and Steve” to walk free.

In the article he implies, or at least creates the impression that there was some sort of collaboration between the Opposition and the Cabinet to enact section 34 thereby creating the legal loophole that might free “Ish and Steve”.

Events follow at warp speed. On Tuesday 13th at 10 am the PNM holds a press conference stating its position on Section 34 and calling on the Prime Minister to convene Parliament to repeal the law. In the midst of Rowley answering media questions a one-sentence announcement comes from the Minister of Communications that Parliament will be convened the following day. The Government claims that this decision was not influenced by the Opposition, but rather, they are responding to the cries of the people. The same way this weekends pre-Budget Rally is a response to the cries of the people. At the time of this announcement of a convened Parliament  the population is still attempting to grapple with the Guardian headline from two days before and isn’t quite sure what Section 34 means.

The Lower and Upper House debates come and the citizenry are suitably pissed on by the Cabinet and told it is a passing shower. No one explains why the Lower House saw one wording of the Section 34 Clause, and the Upper House saw a different wording. No one explains who changed the wording of the Bill. No one explains why after the Cabinet promised no early proclamation of the Bill until all measures were in place it was enacted several months in advance of January 2013. What we are told repeatedly is that there is no conspiracy on the part of the Government to free Ish and Steve and we are reminded constantly through much coughing that the Opposition voted for it too.

Under PM Kamla’s skilful story telling, Section 34 goes from being about a breach in legislation, to PNM vs People’s Partnership thing. The Cabinet refuses to accept responsibility for early proclamation of the Bill and the Opposition is put on the defensive to explain their role in it. Then faecal matter starts to fly. We find out through various letters to the press and other media events that the Minister of Legal Affairs, The DPP, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Association and the Chief Justice never saw, nor agreed to an early proclamation of Section 34. This then forces the Prime Minister, who has been characteristically quiet and always “unresponsible” to decide to speak on the matter on the evening of Thursday 20th, September. Before doing so, she conducts a whirlwind tour of Laventille complete with a cadre of ministers and Olympian Keshorn Walcott. By the end of the Prime Minister’s speech she reveals that she has investigated herself; insists that her government was not aware of the flaws in the Act; there was no conspiracy; decides to remove Herbert Volney as Minister of Justice because he has lied to the Cabinet; stresses to the nation that the Parliament was collectively responsible for the law being enacted; insists that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan was innocent of any wrongdoing; and gives the country a very convoluted and erroneous timeline.

But you see here is the rub, in misspeaking about the timeline the PM has opened up another can of worms. A can of worms that is now revealing that she and her Cabinet were made aware, since 2011, by Ramadhar, al Rawi and Imbert that section 34 had serious implications. Further, her insistence that Anand Ramlogan was out of the country when the decision to enact the Bill was taken seems to be incorrect. The Prime Minister insists that Ramlogan was out of the country from July 20th to August 4th.  The Cabinet meeting to decide on early proclamation happened after August 6th; and further, even if Ramlogan wasn’t here, the acting AG, according to the Gazette was Ganga Singh. So, we had an AG to walk the legislation through. The Bill didn’t walk by itself.

Then there is the curious incident of the publication of the law itself. The Guardian published the story about “Ish and Steve” walking free on September 9th. The two men petitioned the court on Monday 10th; but the law was only printed and circulated by the Government printery that same Monday, in fact the Monday evening. So how did “Ish and Steve’s” lawyers find out about the Act in time to petition the court on the Monday morning, and how did the media find out about the proclaimed Act and “Ish and Steve’s” petition before Monday September 10th? Where is the leak?

We have a crime: perversion of the course of justice; we have suspects: most of them sitting in the Cabinet. What we need now is to find a judge, a jury and an executioner.

De Vice Cyah Done!

Notes from the Pink Palace…the Pre-Budget Feeding Frenzy

Posted on by

The PM’s private residence out of which she does official business. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian website.

 

It is alleged that the following are notes from 3 COP members who were present at the Pre-Budget meeting at the Pink Palace representing the COP. Names have been removed to protect sources. If these reports are indeed accurate it suggests that the COP has lost all power within the Partnership and that the feeding frenzy within the UNC is now beyond epic!

Three reports from the meeting at the PM’s residence yesterday

1)Dear NatEx Colleagues Let me share my sentiments on today’s experience at the “pre-budget discussion”

‘Our’ MP Roberts took pride in ‘chairing’ the meeting The PM had practically the entire Government in one room ‘campaigning’ to ~ 200 persons (about 5 reps. per constituency)

It seemed that the PM did not make it clear what the forum would have been to hear from all MPs.

This was a deliberate misuse of Ministerial time as it was geared ONLY towards consolidating the UNC base and nothing more.

Most persons there were not really interested in the ‘reports’ but the ‘rum & roti’ to follow

There were Board members discussing openly which Boards they want to be on next Yes, we were invited and it would have been discourteous to not attend, but the PM acted in bad faith and used our decency.

In my humble opinion our Ministers present were operating on their own and in the interest of the UNC only –( being USED by the UNC) This cannot be continued, COP MPs/ Ministers needs to be more judicious about their engagements – this was NOT an official Government event – if they can have time to meet with UNC supporters for a feeding frenzy, then they can meet with COP members.

The media was outside with zoom lenses trying to get a shot Just some thoughts.

 

2. Dear Colleagues We correctly assessed the purpose of the UNC gathering yesterday. Panday has trained them well. They have internalized his modus operandi – when faced with a problem, invent an “enemy” and call on the “followers” to surround the wagons to defend the “chief”.

I just heard the news where the UNC leader said ‘if 14000 don’t come to their rally they won’t be supporting their PM’. The disease of individualist self-seeking is reeking at all levels- Parliamentarians acting without reference to the party. Individuals like the one who calls herself the COP’s intellectual capacity sat in silence on Saturday night for the entire meeting and ran to the blogs with a “message to the COP leadership. Her adoring fans on the internet welcome again the display of “heroism” of a coward afraid to speak at a party forum, seeking adoration from the world. Others have also arisen from the dead, ‘back from Banbass’ to reclaim leadership positions having not lifted a finger for the COP for 2 years. We are in a situation in which the NAR fell apart and disappeared. Let us never allow that to be repeated.

3) I was surprised at the format when we got there. We did think that it was a “consultation,” a round-table discussion, maybe. Now there is going to be a pre-budget rally at “Mid-Center Mall” on Saturday. They are rallying their forces, troops.

De Vice Cyah Done

Is TEAM UNC COP worried about COP Walking?

Posted on by

Last night the media blitz to distract from section 34 began with the Panchayat announcing the Pre-Budget rally or Budget Matikor. Online they began boasting that Rowley brought out 5000, but they would bring out 40,000. This morning they posted a list of all the corruption under the PNM…perhaps forgetting conveniently that in 2010 they were hired to root out and put an end to corrupt politics.

The Oppposition Leader’s Office also put out a corresponding list with 63 items that has since been added to by the public.

The intriguing thing is that on Public Walls they are being proud, boastful and unrepentent over the fiasco that is Section 34, but behind closed doors there is fear that the COP will walk and possibly TOP and Errol McLeod.

Take a read. I’ve deleted names and e-mail addresses:

teamunccop@yahoo.com
  • Oh gord man COP man, doh go nah.
    I remember when I was small and the fellows in my village used to come home after drinking their rum in the rumshops.
    It is then they would look for fight among their fellow-villagers.
    We used to be so amused to hear them say even as they brandished their cutlasses.
    “Hold mih back! Allyuh hold mih back before I kill the so-and-so today.”
    Those drunkards did not mean it then, and the COP does not mean their threats today. 
    They just looking for some verbal support. 
    If they could only understand that they are important to the coalition, not as an opposition party, but as support for the government of mainly UNC members.
    Comparatively speaking, they are a small proportion of the coalition, but they act like dictators of the pace.
    I guess that is because of their percieved heights of academic achievements have made their heads too large for their bodies. 
    And that is a pity, because this attitude of theirs can ruin all that this government has set out to do. 

     

    To: JahajeeDesi

    Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:50:30 -0400
    Subject: [FREE SPEECH] _ Re: [So COP leaves the PP, then what?]_ Open Letter To The COP

    There are more things under heaven and earth TEAM UNC-COP than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    Only the wicked and the blind ask what’s next when the decision is one of morality.

    On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM, TEAM UNC-COP wrote:

     

    OK, so let’s say COP leaves the PP government. TEAM UNC-COP & CCDSJintl organization – all our online groups and Facebook pages – are absolutely against this; we are for stronger and more forceful demands by COP to the PP leadership so that we can have better governance,  but totally against COP leaving the PP govt. 
    BUT, since so many are asking or implying COP to leave, let’s come to that situation where COP leaves, on Tuesday Sep 25th 2012. THEN WHAT? COP does what? what next for COP? There is no point asking COP to leave the PP without telling us where does COP go from there?  
    - COP Ministers out of govt so PP appoints others as Ministers. OK. We don’t know how many Ministers will resign from the Govt and COP can’t force anyone to resign from the govt. Anil stays with PP. Who else stays? who leaves? 
    - COP MPs remain as MP. OK.  All of them?
    - COP councilors remain as councilors. OK. Local elections coming up in 2013, will COP field candidates in this election, for a 3-way race, line in 2007?
    - COP is now Opposition B in Parliament. OK. So what?
    - PP govt continues, still with a majority in Parliament. So now what does COP do?

    It wasn’t going to be easy, this amalgam or coalition of parties and people in the PP; and few expected the PP to be so damn bad! But, more expected COP to say more, do more, and demand more. COP can still do that, for the next 30 months.  A major problem facing COP is the MATH: they don’t have the numbers and PP can still remain in govt without COP. Another major problem is a human behavior one: COP people who have positions in the govt will not leave jsut to satisfy the urgings of others who want them to leave, why should they? People behave in that way, whether we like it or not. 

    So, what is the role of a post-PP COP? and why is this better than COP in the PP now? And, how does this benefit COP, how does this benefit T&T?
     

    Subject: Re: Open Letter To The COP

    Am I hearing the bugles of Rowley calling the flock home?????
    J :)

    Activist KBA wrote:
    >
    > Dear Executive and Members Of the COP,
    > 
    > It is my view that the Congress of the People has become a major part of the problem of governance in Trinidad and Tobago and can no longer offer any solutions to the people. We are at a juncture in our history where we need a strong voice emerging pointing to leadership that we can support and trust. Leadership that offers sincere committment to national development; to bringing harmony and balance to the four races of man that co-exist in this space; to assisting this nation to understand the time and align itself with the awakening to the new reality that is emerging in the earth out of the debris of collapsed systems; to practical and comprehensive programs and policies that would facilitate us to overcome ignorance and prejudice and conquer the mountains of culture, society, economy, politics, religion, media and education.
    > 
    > From its inception the COP has spoken disparagingly about the nature of the UNC. I find it very unfortunate that having decided to join with the UNC to attain government, the COP can still find nothing good to say about the UNC two and almost a half years later. What is most disturbing is that the COP expects to stay in a partnership with the UNC, convey to all and sundry how rotten they think that they( the UNC) are and expect the electorate to not recognize the COP as vulgar hypocritical parasites. The COP is turning out to be worse than the UNC. The whole nation knows where it stands with the UNC. For the COP to stay in the Partnership and pretend that it is superior and different to the UNC is tantamount to taking the nation for fools. Marriage is the act of becoming one. Therefore this continuing political marriage makes the COP one with the UNC.
    > 
    > Imagine the COP now claiming that the Prime Minister’s Childrens’ Life Fund and the laptop distribution plan originated with the COP. So what is the point here? Why the confusion? Is it that we can no longer even expect a proper interpretation of the Constitution from the COP. The Constitiution establishes the Opposition as the watchdogs of the government for and on behalf of the people. I am hearing the COP claiming that status. Everybody with sense knows that the implementers are not supposed to be the evaluators. It is an obvious conflict of interest. The COP wants to be the government and the Opposition too. How gauche. This is schizophrenia if you ask me.The COP has to make up its mind whether it is part of a desirable government or an undesirable one. No part of a rotten egg is edible.
    > 
    > It is very sad to see how the COP has so easily abandoned its principles, prograammes and even its pretense at sincerety in exchange for the trappings of power and prestige. The argument has been put forward by the COP that you cannot do anything if you are outside of government. Well that is true, especially if you have not been able to do anything inside the government. Not even own and lay claim to your own projects. I have lost all respect for this sad spectacle that is parading as the COP.
    > 
    > We the people of Trinidad and Tobago are suffering through the agony of an attack against our constitution from within the Parliament itself; we are suffering through the spectre of every watchdog of our democracy sleeping while our democracy was being vandalized; we are suffering through the terror of a great void in leadership and governance; our trust in all our institutions has been eroded as we look at partners, presiding over those institutions, who neither respect nor trust each other.
    > 
    > Our one hope was that the real COP, the one that we thought we voted for in 2010 would emerge and reclaim its brand, its fire , its principles and most importantly, its own identity. Alas, this is not to be.The PNM has lost its way too a long time ago.What will we do now? The people must make the next move. Organize! Organize! Organize!
    > 
    > 

    >

Govt and Opposition Responses to Section 34

Posted on by

I am posting here the PM’s Speech that responds to Section 34, coupled with Dr Rowley’s and Colm Imbert’s response that outlines the details that support their claim that it is a  conspiracy on the part of the Cabinet:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/88412084/Rowley%20speech.mp3

 

 

Statement from  Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar

September 20th 2012

Office of the Prime Minister

 

(check against delivery)

 

My fellow citizens, much has been commented and reported upon the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201 and the proclamation of Section 34. I chose to remain silent on the matter since any premature pronouncement could have been deemed injudicious and appear to influence the outcome of my own investigations and examination of the issue.

As Prime Minister my first task was to convene a special sitting of Parliament to repeal the proclamation of Section 34 as soon as the views of the DPP on this matter were made known to the Attorney General. This action was taken within twenty four hours of the DPP’s expressed views to the Attorney General.

My second consideration was to examine all the facts and to conduct enquiries with various individuals both within and without the government. Even as it was generally agreed that the piece of legislation was unanimously passed by both sides of the House with full support of all members of the government, opposition and independent senators, the questions that still remained were how did Section 34 gain the support of all members of Parliament and why was it proclaimed early?

To arrive at an answer and judgement on these matters a number of considerations had to be made.

 

THREE PILLARS OF GOVERNMENT

 

We have a parliamentary system of Government modeled on the Westminster System of the United Kingdom. This is a legacy of our colonial past which we have in common with many of our sister nations in the Commonwealth. Such a system is premised on three important institutional pillars, the independence of each being is vital and fundamental to our democracy. These pillars are the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary or Put another way, the Government, the Parliament and the Courts. These institutions are the tripod upon which our democratic system of governance rests. They are separate and independent of each other and must hence be duly respectful of each other.

I preface my comments with these words so that you can appreciate and place the present controversy over Section 34 in its proper context.

  

THE TWO ISSUES 

As Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet I have taken cognizance of the debate both within and without Parliament and the comments made on the passage and proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201. There are two areas of concern:-

 

(1)  The Bill including Section 34 was passed by both Houses of Parliament with the full support of the Opposition and   Independent benches;

(2) Cabinet agreed to the prior partial proclamation of Section 34

a  prelude to the proclamation of the rest of the Act.

 

The underlying rationale of this legislation was the laudable objective of freeing up the wheels of the administration of justice and an attempt to address the intractable endemic delay in the dispensation of criminal justice. It was a bold blow for the promotion of efficiency. It was a notion subscribed to by all stakeholders in the Parliament and Senate.

With respect to the first point, I cannot speak for the Parliament as it comprises not only representatives of the Government but Opposition and Independent benches. Parliament is not the Government and the Government is not the Parliament.

Suffice it to say, I note that several persons who are currently voicing objections some with unnecessary vitriol and vituperation, to Section 34 not only participated in the Parliamentary debate on this matter, but also voted in favor of this measure. Indeed, I note that some independent senators voted against the repeal of section 34.

 

It was therefore, the Parliament in its collective wisdom that gave birth to Section 34. Whenever the Act was proclaimed (whether partially or in its entirety), applications under Section 34 would have been possible. – it targeted no particular persons , it was not designed to protect any sectional interests. IT WAS A DEVELOPMENTAL MEASURE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PERSONS WHO FOUND THEMSELVES FALLING WITHIN THE PROVISION as agreed to by members of the Opposition in the Parliament and Senate as well as independent senators! It is important to remember that Section 34 would never have been proclaimed at any time had it not been unanimously approved in the Parliament and the Senatewithout a single abstention or dissenting voice.

 

Whilst it would be unwise for me to speculate on some or all of the reasons Parliament approved section 34, I reject and dismiss the idea that section 34 was passed as part of some grand conspiracy designed to benefit certain individuals. Such a conspiracy would necessarily have to involve the government, the opposition and the independent benches since it was approved by all those groups. That kind of accusation is both fanciful and incredible.

The Opposition, to this moment, has refused to acknowledge that whether Section 34 was proclaimed now, then or later their support of it and indeed the independent senators cannot be ignored.

If Section 34 was bad now it would have been bad on January 31st as well notwithstanding the fact that early proclamation should never have occurred.

 

 

So having established shared responsibility by all members of Parliament for its very existence the only other question remained how did Section 34 come to be proclaimed earlier than intended? The answer lies in the Cabinet note on August 6th 2012 and the discussions that took place at that time.

I have reviewed this matter and wish to share with you my thoughts on same. What are the facts? What is the truth?

(a) The Bill approved by the LRC and cabinet did not contain the version of Section 34 which was eventually approved and passed by both the Lower and Upper Houses.

 

(b) There was an amendment to section 34 in the Senate which was unanimously approved. This amendment changed the limitation on prosecution of certain offences from 10 years from the date of charge to ten years from the date of the offence. No one considered then (as some seem to suggest by innuendo now ) that this change was any nefarious ploy born of some ulterior motive .

 

(c) The change made in, and approved by, the Senate, effectively introduced a limitation period of 10 (ten) years for the prosecution of crimes. It effectively meant that you could not prosecute someone for certain crimes if more than 10 (ten) years had elapsed from the day the offence was committed or since the defendant first appeared in court.

(d) On August 6th 2012 the Honorable Minister of Justice tabled a note before the Cabinet which sought Cabinet’s approval to proclaim the Act with effect from January 1st 2013. The note also sought approval for the early proclamation inter alia, of Section 34 on the basis that it was necessary to  (and I quote…)

“Facilitate a seamless operational transition and … give authority for the recruitment and appointment of Master’s of the High Court by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in order that the Act may be operationalised on its effective date of January 1st 2013.” End of quote.

I specifically inquired of the Honorable Minister of Justice whether the Honorable Chief Justice and the DPP were consulted on these measures. The Honorable Minister of Justice drew my attention to paragraph five of the note, which stated that the Honorable Chief Justice had been consulted on the date for proclamation. He then confirmed to the Cabinet that he had the support and approval of both the Chief Justice and the DPP on this matter.

 

The approval, by the cabinet, of this piecemeal proclamation was therefore predicated and based on the assurance and understanding that the judiciary and the DPP were adequately consulted and fully supported the earlier implementation of  this measure as a precursor to rest of the Act coming into force on January 1st  2013.

 

(e) In accordance with the established practice and procedure, a Cabinet minute was subsequently issued directly to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for the preparation of the draft proclamation. This draft is then sent from the CPC to the Cabinet Secretariat for onward transmission to the Office of the President.

I have spoken to the CPC and he has confirmed that the Honorable Attorney General did not participate in this process because conventionally, the Office of the CPC independently liaises with the Cabinet Secretariat and the Office of the President on such matters. I pause also to note that the AG was away on vacation during the period July 20th to August 4th.

(e) Soon after section 34 was proclaimed, the DPP expressed concerns to the Honorable AG about the implications and consequences of same. The AG sought an immediate audience with me and having examined the matter myself, I was satisfied that the consequences and far-reaching implications of this section was not consistent with Government policy.  A detailed Press release was also subsequently issued by the DPP outlining his concerns about the impact and consequences of Section 34.

 

In the circumstances, I gave instructions for the parliament to be convened immediately to consider repealing section 34. I also summoned the cabinet to an emergency meeting to discuss the matter and ratify the decision taken by the AG and to present a Bill to repeal section 34. The government therefore moved swiftly to successfully reverse the ill-effects and unintended consequences of this section.

This demonstrates the bona fides of the government in its quest to provide good governance!

 

(f) Following several days of enquiry and investigation I contacted the Honorable Chief Justice to inform him about the apparent contradiction between his concern on the early proclamation and our understanding through the Cabinet note provided by the Honourable Minister of Justice and our discussions with the Minister.

 

I humbly requested a report on the issue. The Honorable Chief Justice provided a written report. The Honorable Chief Justice also provided notes taken at a meeting held on July 24th 2012 with a specially appointed Inter-Ministerial Committee.

(g) On Wednesday September 19th 2012, I met with the Honorable Chief Justice and DPP to discuss these issues. I am NOW satisfied that there was no prior adequate or proper consultation with either office holder on the early proclamation of Section 34. I am also satisfied that there was a legitimate expectation that on the part of the Chief Justice and the DPP that there would be no partial proclamation of the act as this assurance was given by the Minister of Justice at the last meeting of the Justice Sector Reform Committee held on July 24th 2012 and there was no subsequent meeting. Accordingly, it is implausible that they supported this measure.

 

The procedure in Cabinet is based on two important constitutional principles namely,

1.   Individual Ministerial responsibility to the Cabinet

2.   Collective responsibility of the Cabinet for decisions taken

 

All Ministers have a sacred duty and responsibility to the cabinet. In seeking to persuade the Cabinet to approve his/ her note, a minister has a duty to present his case objectively and accurately in the knowledge that the Cabinet will act on his assurances and representations. The Cabinet is entitled to rely and act upon the statements made. It influences, informs and guides the deliberations of the Cabinet on the particular issue.

The Cabinet, in reliance upon the assurances by the Honorable Minister of Justice regarding the support of the Honorable Chief Justice and the DPP for the measures contained in his note to Cabinet, approved the early proclamation of Section 34 and the subsequent proclamation of the rest of the Act on January 2nd 2013.

The Hon Minister of Justice had a duty to faithfully and accurately represent the position and views of the Honorable Chief Justice and the DPP. He failed to do so and the cabinet relied and acted on his assurances in good faith. His failure to do so is a serious misrepresentation and amounts to material non-disclosure of relevant facts to the Cabinet which effectively prevented it from making an informed decision.

When the concerns were first raised by the DPP I recalled that we were given assurances during that Cabinet meeting that both the DPP and Chief Justice had agreed to the early proclamation of Section 34 but it was also crucial that I did not embroil the Office of the Chief Justice in the controversy swirling around. I thank him for the dignified manner in which he chose to deal with the matter in light of the claims made in the Cabinet note and the discussions arising out of that document at the time.

It is clear that the Chief Justice never at any stage agreed to the early proclamation of Section 34 and expressed his reservations when he gave approval on the proclamation of the entire Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 201 for January 31st as agreed to by the Parliament.

From the onset of this issue I sought not to embroil the Chief Justice but could not do so when the matter of the early proclamation of Section 34 rested entirely on the erroneous advice given to the Cabinet by the Minister of Justice.

I allowed all sides on the issue to be ventilated, giving everyone their opportunity to speak and offer counsel. While I always had the authority to take any immediate action I also had the responsibility to be thorough, fair and prudent. I did advise the DPP and the Chief Justice on the decision and announcement I am about to make in deference to their esteemed positions and offered on behalf of my government our sincere and humble apologies for the misrepresentation made to cabinet of their opinions by Minister Volney.

I held a formal and candid meeting with Minister Volney today who has admitted that he erred.

In the circumstances, I wish to state that I have advised, His Excellency the Acting President Timothy Hamel Smith to immediately revoke the appointment of Mr. Herbert Volney MP as the Minister of Justice. I have also advised that Ms. Christlion Moore, attorney at law of Lambeau Village in Tobago be appointed a Senator and the Minister of Justice.

There were some both within and outside the government who called upon me to pronounce upon this matter before today.

Even as I appreciate their concerns, it was important that I did not fall prey to the vice of haste and premature judgment as it often results in ill-informed prejudicial statements. I therefore avoided making any rash or hasty statements that could be used against the people and the State by accused persons in a court of law.

I acted immediately to facilitate the swift repeal of Section 34 and initiate a review of the entire process to ascertain the facts. I chose to remain silent because premature commentary on the matter before all relevant information became available would have been injudicious.

Great care and sensitivity is required when one is considering an issue that touches and concerns the three independent arms of the State. I resisted the temptation to rush to judgment to permit an informed, fair and objective consideration of the issues raised.

The sacred oath I took to serve you as Prime Minister is one that I will continue to responsibly discharge without fear or favor in the public interest. There is no political consideration, no personal ambition, greater than public confidence in the good governance of our nation. I will never lack the courage or willingness to forego any political gain in pursuit of the integrity demanded of all us who are called upon to serve the people. The integrity of my government will not be compromised by anyone regardless of the office they hold. The consequences of such action are clear.

I hold everyone who is entrusted to their job to be accountable and whenever I feel such trust is compromised or integrity breached I will act decisively.

In past administrations too many times too many things were overlooked or swept under the carpet because it might have been politically self serving to have done so but I would rather fall on my own political sword than choose to ignore or excuse such failings.

Whether it is non performance or breach of trust, I will not shirk in my responsibility to the people. Neither will I ever be rushed into making rash and imprudent decisions to satisfy anyone’s agenda.

In recent days we have witnessed a level of political consciousness and sensitivity that hearten me as the Leader of a democratic State.

Public apathy and indifference would have been indications of jaundiced democracy and lukewarm patriotism. Your marches, comments and blogs are positive indicators of the people’s political health.

I have listened to the voices of man on the street and the utterances of learned professionals from their respective platforms and understand some of the sources of confusion. And while I may not agree with all of the sentiments and views expressed, I embrace the debate and demonstration. It is your constitutional right to so do and we welcome those who feel so passionately about the state of the nation and its future.

As a Fifty Year old Nation we are still experiencing growing pains as we develop and mature politically but the freedom to express our views and the commitment of government to act in your interest are positive developments.

True to our word and election promise, this administration has been active in the area of Justice Reform and has proceeded on the basis of Parliamentary consensus and public support.

Let these circumstances give us all a measure of assurance that our democracy is strong, that right will also rise above wrong, that there is in place a leadership that will never allow injustice to prevail. There is no room for arrogance or deceit or dishonesty and no matter how many times it takes to remove it, I will do so. Trinidad and Tobago is stronger for this as it demonstrates that the same old way of governing is changing simply because tough decisions on integrity and performance are being made all the time.

 

In the past there was a general acceptance of things as just the way things were in Trinidad and Tobago. But today the status quo has changed, public expectation has changed. There is a new level of accountability and assurance that something will be done. This is the shift we can take solace from even as we face up to the challenges before us. A few years ago the people demanded the course of the nation be changed and called for a new direction, today you can all feel confident that the historic tolerance for wrong doing is over.

To the people of Trinidad and Tobago, to His Excellency the President of Trinidad and Tobago, to the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, to the Chief Justice and the DPP, on behalf of my government I express my sincerest apology. I am strengthened by the experience, firmer in my resolve to stay the course of changing the society for the better and humbled by the advice, support and encouragement received from so many.

May God Bless you all and may God bless our nation.

 

The Clause 34 Timeline (Updated)

Posted on by

TIME LINE & ISSUES (This Time Line continues to be a work in progress as new info offers itself up)

 

RELATIVE TO THE SECTION 34 FIASCO

 

 

The following is materially relevant for National consideration:

 

 

 

1.                 Ramlogan was appointed by the Prime Minister as the Attorney General on May 26th 2010 and after he and the Prime Minister were sworn in, the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago was fully constituted.  Volney was sworn in as Minister of Justice thereafter.  Warner is the Minister of National Security.  Ramadhar is the Minister of Legal Affairs, acts as the Minister of Justice and is Head of the Legislative Review Committee.  Singh is the Minister of the Environment and Water Resources and acts as the Attorney General and is the leader of Government business in the Senate.

 

 

 

2.                 In the second half of 2010, the Attorney General replaced the team of Attorneys which to that date had successfully resisted all approaches to the Court intended to stall the extradition to the United States of America of Messrs. Galbaransingh and Ferguson to face criminal prosecution there.

 

 

 

3.                 In or around June 15th 2010 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed applications for Habeas Corpus filed by Galbarsingh and Ferguson rendering them liable to be placed into custody pending extradition.  In light of the decision of the Privy Council it was Ramlogan’s responsibility to instruct that Galbaransingh and Ferguson be placed into custody to await extradition. He failed to do so with alacrity.  It was only after the insistence of the Director of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) were they placed into custody pending extradition.

 

 

 

4.                 Contrary to extradition practice and procedure which prescribes that the requested state should resist bail applications, the Attorney General adopted the position that the State should not support nor oppose the application for bail for Galbaransingh and Ferguson, but merely assist the court.

 

 

 

5.                 According to various press releases and news reports, the Legislative Review Committee (LRC), the DPP, the Law Association and the Criminal Bar Association were all consulted with respect to the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill but the controversial section 34 and Sixth Schedule were not in the Bill and therefore were not considered by these public authorities and bodies.

 

 

 

6.                 Mr. Justice Boodoosingh’s judgment in Judicial Review proceedings HCA No. CV 2010-04144 filed by Galbaransingh and Ferguson against the Attorney General’s decision to extradite them was delivered on 7th November 2011. By this judgment, it was held that it would be “unjust, oppressive and unlawful” to extradite Galbaransingh and Ferguson to the United States because they could be tried for their offences in Trinidad and Tobago and indeed Trinidad and Tobago was the appropriate forum for such trial.

 

 

 

7.                 The Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill was laid in the House of Representatives for its 1st reading on November 11th 2011;

 

 

 

8.                 Debate in the House of Representatives on the Bill began on November 18th 2011.   In this version of the Bill, section 34 and the Sixth Schedule provided for the “amnesty” to begin to run from the date of charge.  On this version, the charges against Galbaransingh and Ferguson in what is called the Piarco #2 criminal proceedings would not have been affected, but the charges in Piarco #1 would have been subject to dismissal.

 

 

 

9.                 The Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill was laid in the Senate for its 1streading on November 22nd 2011;

 

 

 

10.            On November 29th 2011 debate on the Bill began in the Senate.  The Bill from the House of Representatives contained section 34 in same terms as debated and passed in the House of Representatives.  Independent Senator Prescott SC alluded to the possible impact on fraud and bid-rigging cases. He said (vide pp. 115-116 of Hansard):

 

 

 

“If you have been brought to court and 10 years have passed since the proceedings have been instituted, a judge is bound to discharge the accused. 

 

Mr. President, if you are charged in this country with fraud, with currency infringement, with bidrigging and you have enough money to take the matter to the Privy Council at each stage, 10 years later you are bound to find—you may well find, that you are  still at the initial hearing or the sufficiency hearing.  

 

In short, current events tell us that it may take 10 years to get out of the masters’ court in a sufficiency hearing.  And then all you have to do when you cross the 10 years deadline, go before the judge and say dismiss this case; discharge me here.  I do not know, because there used to be a doubt in my mind whether discharge means that there are not going to be any further criminal proceedings, but it would certainly lead to further constitutional proceedings if you try to charge him again.”

 

 

 

11.            Immediately thereafter Ramlogan made his contribution.  Ramlogan himself made a transparent reference to the Piarco cases.  He said: (vide p. 124 of the Hansard):

 

 

 

“In highly complex and technical matters, in particular, in relation to financial crimes, fraud matters, this abolition of preliminary inquiries will serve us well because we have known that matters have taken a meandering, endless path through the labyrinth of our criminal justice system for quite some time now, with no end in sight.  The endemic backlog that presently exists, this will hopefully dynamite the log-jam and it is going to free up the system and have knock-on benefits down the road.“

 

 

 

12.            An Amendment to Section 34 providing that the ‘amnesty’ would commence 10 years from the occurrence of the offence, instead of from the laying of the charge, was introduced by Volney at the Committee Stage in the Senate after the debate had ended.  On this version, the charges in Piarco #2 would now be subject to dismissal.  At no time during his contribution did Volney explain the difference between the version of section 34 as brought from the House of Representatives and the amendment that he now proposed.

 

 

 

13.            Before the Committee Stage of the Senate was concluded discussions took place (as they say behind the President’s chair) between an independent Senator, Senator Al-Rawi and Ramlogan about the impact of the proposed amendment to section 34 on the pending Piarco cases.   The Senators all agreed that once section 34 came into force Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be entitled to apply to have the cases against them dismissed.  Ramlogan assured the Senators that before the Act was proclaimed there would be full consideration of all issues, that all conditions requested in the debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate would be met and that a further review would be had, including an amendment of the Sixth Schedule to the Act to make the offences with which Galbaransingh and Ferguson were charged exempt from the application of section 34.  He pointed out that the amendment to the Sixth Schedule could be done under section 27(3) by a Minister’s Order or by way of amendments to the Act prior to proclamation.

 

 

 

14.            By the end of November 2011, therefore, it is clear that Ramlogan knew (or ought to have known) that section 34 would free UNC financiers Galbaransingh and Ferguson.

 

 

 

15.            Indeed, on September 13th 2012 the Senators with whom Ramlogan held discussions behind the President’s Chair reminded him of those discussions.  Further, during the course of the debate on September 13th 2012 on the Bill to repeal section 34, Senator Prescott re-read his contributions quoted above reminding the Senate of his cautions with respect to the impact of section 34.  For his part, Al-Rawi reminded the Senate during the same debate of what he described as the “side-bar” discussions with Ramlogan on November 29th 2011.  Ramlogan did not deny any of this in his windup.

 

 

 

16.            With this knowledge, it was incumbent on the Attorney General to take immediate steps to effect an appropriate amendment to section 34 or the Sixth Schedule to ensure that Galbarabsingh and Ferguson were not the beneficiaries of the amnesty.  He was obliged to do so because this is what he had undertaken to do in his discussions behind the President’s chair in the Senate.  He was obliged to do so because the State had expended substantial resources in prosecuting the cases against them in relation to serious charges of fraud and bidrigging.  It was also imperative that he do so because it was obvious that the discharge of Galbarabsingh and Ferguson would cause grave public disquiet and embarrassment to his government.  It was therefore expected that he would take it upon himself to initiate appropriate amendments to the Act, unless of course he already knew that it was his government’s intention to allow Galbaransingh and Ferguson to go free.

 

 

 

17.            On December 16th 2011 the President of the Republic assented to the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Enquiry) Bill as Act No. 20 of 2011

 

 

 

18.            On December 17th 2011 James Lewis QC gave his opinion to Ramlogan on a possible appeal against the judgment of Boodoosingh J.  He stated at page 18, paragraph 5.10:

 

 

 

“On the other hand I am informed that the Claimants can be tried in Trinidad and Tobago almost immediately on the same conduct”.

 

 

 

Given that Mr Lewis was advising the Attorney General, one must assume that he got that information from the Attorney General himself.  But after the passage section 34, it was clear that, upon proclamation, Galbarabsingh and Ferguson could not be tried at all.  It was equally clear therefore that Lewis’ advice was based upon false or incomplete information.

 

 

 

19.            On December 19th 2011 Ramlogan announced his decision not to appeal Justice Boodoosingh’s ruling on the basis that the “ends of justice” will be served by foregoing the Appeal and allowing the criminal prosecution currently before the local courts to proceed.  See Newsday Article by Jada Loutoo appearing on December 20th 2011.

 

 

 

20.            Ramlogan’s decision not to appeal effectively gave Galbaransingh and Ferguson their first victory against the State with respect to their extradition proceedings and meant that they would not be tried in the United States.  And the reason for this dramatic event, according to the Attorney General, was that they would be tried in Trinidad and Tobago.

 

 

 

21.            It must have been clear to the Attorney General that once section 34 was proclaimed Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be entitled to apply to the court to be discharged of all offences. He could therefore have done two things.  He could have appealed the Judge’s decision and introduce fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal that section 34 once proclaimed would undercut the foundation of Justice Boodoosingh’s decision.  Or, as he had promised, he could have taken steps to ensure that section 34 was amended so that there would in fact be a trial.  He did neither!  It is either that he never intended to take steps to amend section 34 because it was his government’s or his own personal intention that Galbarabsingh and Ferguson should escape justice, in which case he deliberately misrepresented to the public that there would be a local trial.  Or he was grossly negligent in not taking steps to ensure that there would be a trial.

 

 

 

22.            It is probably not surprising that on December 21st 2011 the United States Embassy in Trinidad by way of a press release expressed disappointment as to the outcome of the Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradition case.

 

 

 

23.            On July 24th 2012 Volney, Warner and others attended a meeting with the DPP, the Chief Justice and others held by the Judiciary and Justice Sector Committee at the Chief Justice’s Conference room at the Hall of Justice.  According to a press release by the DPP, the item on the agenda was the “Implementation Process for the Regime under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011”.  See the DPP’s Press Release dated 11th September 2011.  The DPP specifically stated in this release:

 

 

 

“During this meeting, the effect and to some extent, the import of section 34 of the Act were raised.  This prompted a response by Minister of Justice that Cabinet had made a decision”.

 

 

 

24.            In relation to that very same meeting, Warner stated in an interview appearing on television on or around September 20th 2012 that it was agreed at the meeting of July 24th 2012 that Act No. 20 of 2011 was to be proclaimed in its entirety.

 

 

 

25.            The Prime Minister in her Address to the Nation of September 20th 2012 said that Ramlogan was out of the country during the period July 20th 2012 to August 4th 2012.  During that period Singh acted as Attorney General.

 

 

 

26.            Volney prepared the Cabinet Note which supposedly led to his dismissal on August 6th2012.  Ramlogan returned to Trinidad on August 4th 2012.  Volney stated in his televised press conference on September 21st 2012 that he was out of the country when the Cabinet note came up for confirmation and that Ramadhar acted as Minister of Justice in his absence.

 

 

 

27.            It is important to note that Ramlogan (who knew of the effect of section 34 on the prosecution of the Galbaransingh and Ferguson matters), Warner and Singh (who would both have been aware of the undertaking to proclaim the Act in its entirety) were all present at the relevant Cabinet meetings.  One can only conclude, based on the Address to the Nation by the Prime Minister on September 20th 2012, that Ramlogan said nothing at the said Cabinet meetings in relation to the impact of section 34 and that Warner and Singh said nothing in relation to the meeting of July 24th2012, where according to Warner, the undertaking was given to proclaim the Act in its entirety. This must be emphasized: Ramlogan apparently did not advise his Cabinet colleagues that the early proclamation of section 34 would have entitled Galbaransingh and Ferguson to apply immediately to have their charges dismissed!

 

 

 

28.            The Cabinet Note of August 6th 2012 states:

 

 

 

(i)                At paragraph 5 – “The Minister of Justice has consulted with the Honourable Chief Justice on a date for the coming into effect of the measures introduced in the act and it has been agreed that the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) Act be repealed and that the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 shall come into effect in its entirety on January 2nd 2013.”

 

 

 

(ii)              At paragraph 6 – “In order to facilitate a seamless operational transition it is necessary for the Act to be proclaimed in part on August 31st 2012 in order to inform the need inter alia for the creation of eight (8) new positions of Masters by an Amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.  This will give authority for the recruitment and appointment of Masters of the High Court by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission in order that the Act may be operationalized on its effective date of January 2nd 2013.”

 

 

 

29.             According to the Cabinet minute dated August 9th 2012, the said note was considered and Cabinet agreed that:

 

 

 

“(a)           In accordance with the provision of 1(ii) of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 the President by proclamation:

 

 

 

(i)                fix August 31st 2012 as the date on which the Act, with the exception of section 3(2) and (3), 4 to 31, 33, 35 Schedules 1 to 5 and Schedules 7 and 8 shall come into operation.

 

 

 

(ii)              fix January 2nd 2013 as the date on which Sections 3(2) and (3), 4 to 31, 33, 35 Schedules 1 to 5 and Schedules 7 and 8 of the said Act  shall come into operation.

 

 

 

(b)                         The Attorney General cause to be prepared the necessary Proclamation(s) to give legal effect to (a) above.”

 

 

 

30.            The President of Republic signed the Proclamation of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 on August 28th 2012 which was published in the Gazette on 10thSeptember 2012 as Legal Notice No. 348 (No. 8 of 2012).

 

 

 

31.            The House of Representatives was convened to debate a bill to repeal section 34 retroactively on September 12th 2012.  Ramlogan, Warner, Roberts and Volney spoke in the debate.  None of them spoke to any of the matters raised by the Prime Minister in her Address to the Nation on September 20th 2012 nor to any of the matters set out above.

 

 

 

32.            The Senate was convened to debate the bill to repeal section 34 retroactively on September 12th 2012 as passed in the House of Representatives.  Ramlogan was the only person of all 15 Government Senators present, to contribute to the Bill.  He spoke to none of the matters raised by the Prime Minister in her Address to the Nation on September 20th 2012.

 

 

 

33.            The Attorney General is the titular head of bar and is the 2nd person to be appointed after the Prime Minister to comprise a Cabinet.  It is his duty and responsibility to vet all Cabinet Notes presented to the Cabinet and to advise on all legal issues arising.  The office of the Attorney General is directly­ involved in the Galbaransingh and Ferguson matters through the extradition request.  He was in the country and in Cabinet on August 6th 2012 and in the Cabinet confirmation meeting thereafter when the aforementioned Note and Minute were discussed and when the Prime Minister examined Volney on whether the Chief Justice and the DPP had been consulted.

 

 

 

34.            In light of the above, Ramlogan owed the public answers to the following questions:

 

 

 

(i)                Why did he not appeal Justice Boodoosingh’s decision and apply to put fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal that section 34 now rendered a local trial impossible and that accordingly the basis on which Justice Boodoosingh decided that it was unjust and oppressive to extradite Galbaransingh and Ferguson no longer existed?

 

 

 

(ii)             Why did he tell the public that he decided not to appeal because there was to be a local trial when he knew that once section 34 was proclaimed Galbaranbsingh and Ferguson would be discharged?

 

 

 

(iii)           Why did he not take steps to amend the Sixth Schedule or section 34 to make sure that Galbaransingh and Ferguson could not rely on section 34?

 

 

 

(iv)           Why did he not advise Cabinet on August 6th that the proclamation of section 34 would mean that Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be entitled to be discharged?

 

 

 

(v)              Did he fail to do all of these obvious things because it was his government’s intention that Galbarabsingh and Ferguson should go free? Or was that result his own private intention?

 

 

 

 

 

35.            At the very least, Ramlogan knew that when section 34 was proclaimed Galbaransingh and Ferguson would be freed.  His failure to do anything, whether by advising Cabinet of this eventuality or otherwise, represents gross dereliction of duty on his part.

 

 

 

36.            Warner, Ramadhar and Singh appear in the context of their continued silence to be complicit in the section 34 fiasco.

 

 

 

37.            The Prime Minister’s explanations in her Address to the Nation on September 20th 2012 are seriously lacking.  Her decision to fire Volney as opposed to announcing an acceptance of his resignation is entirely suspicious.  She must explain having deemed Ramlogan and herself deserving of “silk” why none of the aforementioned has been brought to the national attention. 

 

 

 

38.            The nation clearly cannot trust the government and it is therefore imperative that the country be permitted to judge them in a general election.