Section 34 Thread

[Bourbon]

So....

WEST HEADS TO DPP
...to file statement on AG’s alleged witness tampering
By Anika Gumbs CCN Senior Multimedia Investigative Journalist



West is the former head of the Central Authority Unit that falls under the purview of the office of the Attorney General.

Ramlogan had initially refused to confirm or deny whether he had asked West to withdraw the witness statement when asked by the Sunday Express last week but on Sunday via a news release he denied the allegation.

“I wish to categorically refute and deny the allegation that I asked PCA Chairman David West to withdraw his witness statement during a telephone conversation that allegedly took place  on October 31, 2014 or at anytime thereafter,” Ramlogan’s release stated.

Ramlogan has also claimed that he was unaware he (West) was a witness in the matter until December 22, 2014.

West’s witness statement dated June 27, 2014 was filed in the High Court on December 19 and received by Ramlogan’s legal team on December 22.

On Monday, West dismissed Ramlogan’s claim via a release: “I David West am a witness to a matter between Anand Ramlogan and Dr Keith Rowley (CV2012-02948). On June 27, 2014 I submitted a signed witness statement to my attorneys on the said matter.

My witness statement has since been in possession of my attorneys and was subsequently filed on December 22, 2014. The content of the statement is a matter of public record. During this time frame any individual with interest in this particular matter would have been privy to the list of witnesses and would have known that I am a witness in the matter. I stand by my witness statement and I am ready to defend it under oath.”



Court documents corroborate West’s statement that Ramlogan’s legal team was informed that West was a witness in the matter long before December 22.

Express investigations have revealed that the Attorney General telephoned West after midday on October 31, 2014.

This call to West was the second call that was registered on his cellphone from Ramlogan on that same day.

Ramlogan had telephoned West earlier on the morning of October 31, informing him that he was tipped to head the PCA following the resignation of then director attorney Gillian Lucky, who accepted a judgeship in September last year.

However, at the time the second telephone call was made, the Office of the President had already contacted West on the same day (October 31) scheduling a meeting with him on November 3 regarding his appointment as PCA head.

The Express learned that immediately following the telephone conversation with Ramlogan, West sought legal advice.

Yeah man this AG have nothing to hide, and is highly truthful. It is SHOCKING that West would seek to tarnish a man of his stature and caliber.

[Flex]

Griffith threatens to walk
By Renuka Singh (Guardian).

National Security Minister Gary Griffith is threatening to quit in the face of scathing press release issued by Communication Minister Vasant Bharath yesterday accused him of making false claims and compromising the integrity of Cabinet.  Bharath was referring to reports that Griffith claimed he was pressured by his Cabinet colleagues not support a criminal complaint by Police Complaints Authority Director David West.

West claimed on Thursday that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan asked him (West) to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation case between Ramlogan and Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley in exchange for the PCA post.

Griffith is now threatening to expose private details of a meeting he and his wife, Congress of the People chairman, Nicole Dyer-Griffith were “summoned to” with Bharath and United National Congress’s campaign and advertising consultant Ernie Ross on Thursday in Woodbrook. In a subsequent interview though, Bharath denied calling Dyer-Griffith to any meeting and he also denied being present at any meeting with Griffith, Dyer-Griffith and Ross.

In a telephone interview yesterday, a livid Griffith, who was at the National Panorama semifinals, at the Queen’s Park Savannah, in Port-of-Spain, said that he was surprised that Bharath would be the first to say there was no Cabinet pressure on him to not support West. Griffith also criticised Bharath, claiming that the move to discredit him was a “red herring” designed to push him out of office.

“I do not need to sell my soul for a political seat and I am not begging anyone to stay, I could walk out of the Government tomorrow with my head high,” Griffith said. Griffith said Bharath never contacted him before issuing that statement and was shocked that Bharath would make such damning statements without verifying whether he did in fact say that Cabinet was putting pressure on him not to support West.

“It is surprising and ironic that the Minister of Communication is the first to jump out and make those statements. It is ironic that he of all people would be saying that but you know what they say about people who protest too much,” Griffith said.

He said it was “interesting” that Bharath would make such statements “as if he forgot” what played off between the four of us at a meeting at Ross’ office on Thursday, after news broke that Griffith was in fact maintaining that he would remain a witness against Ramlogan.

“The court of public opinion could judge me and I could keep my head high but I want Bharath to answer to the country what he was doing up in Ernie Ross office on Thursday and why they summoned me and Mrs Griffith to a meeting and what was said there,” Griffith said. “The Minister of Communication lacks the most basic common sense and manners if he cannot contact me before making these statements,” he said.

“Let them continue, I have no intention to lie to protect anyone and I am not going to be pressured to lie,” Griffith said. Despite Griffith’s threats, it was Bharath who drew first blood yesterday when he issued a media statement saying that Griffith’s word and actions had “compromised the integrity of Cabinet”.

Cabinet confusion

Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj said on Saturday that the entire Cabinet could be the subject of a police investigation if it proven that pressure had been applied to Griffith to withdraw his statement in support of West. The media release carried the headline “Bharath: Griffith’s claims ‘false and without basis’ and went on to say that Griffith’s claim that he was pressured by Cabinet was “COMPLETELY false and without any basis whatsoever!”

 “Any suggestion that such a request was made of the National Security Minister at the meeting of Cabinet last Thursday is completely and utterly false. The Cabinet never, at any time, attempted to do as Mr Griffith has claimed,” the release noted.

“In dismissing the claims, Minister Bharath added: “More than Mr Griffith’s claims being completely untrue is the fact that he has, by his actions, compromised the integrity of Cabinet, and has done so without any clear or rational reason,” Bharath’s release said.

“The irony of these claims are also very stark, when one considers that it is this Government that has done the most to not only maintain, but improve the processes and mechanisms that promote accountability and transparency in Government,” Bharath said.

AG to resign ...Lalla tipped for job

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is set to resign today and attorney Larry Lalla is expected to be sworn in. The Cabinet change will take place before Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar makes her much anticipated announcement at 4 pm.

According to the Constitution, Cabinet must be made up of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, so once Ramlogan steps down, Lalla would have to be signed in immediately in order to uphold the Constitutional description of what constitutes a government.

The T&T Guardian understands that Ramlogan has not met with Persad-Bissessar but instead was allowed to send a statement to her following reports that Police Complaints Authority (PCA) Director David West made a complaint to police, accusing Ramlogan of attempting to “pervert the course of justice” by asking him to withdraw his witness statement in a civil matter filed by Ramlogan against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley.

The T&T Guardian was informed that Ramlogan met with three lawyers on Thursday; his private lawyer Pamela Elder SC, Wayne Sturge and Gerald Ramdeen. While both Sturge and Ramdeen were spotted entering Ramlogan’s office on Thursday, Elder refused to comment on “anything concerning the AG”, when contacted yesterday. Key members of the Cabinet met at Persad-Bissessar’s home in Phillpine, South Trinidad up until 4 am Sunday morning, sources said, but Ramlogan was a no show.

The T&T Guardian understands that he spent the past three days in his gated-community Palmiste home with his family, discussing his next step. The T&T Guardian was told that while Ramlogan appeared crest-fallen, he stands by his denial that he ever sought to bargain the PCA job as an inducement for West to withdraw his witness statement in the defamation case with Rowley.

“He has said that by the grace of God, he would prove this was a move driven by hate and vengeance,” the insider said. In a statement last Thursday, hours after West made his report, Ramlogan claimed the allegation was “part of a wider political conspiracy designed to damage the government as we draw closer to elections.”

National Security Minister Gary Griffith, who has been identified as a witness in West’s complaint, when he claimed that Ramlogan duped him into contacting West to follow up on whether the witness had withdrawn the witness statement as discussed. Griffith had claimed that he did not know the contents of the document he was asked to follow up on with West.

Griffith said yesterday that has been cleared by investigators and was not a suspect in anyway while the provisions of PCA Act 2006 protects West. Lalla, the T&T Guardian learned has not yet been informed of the confirmation of the appointment but has signalled to close friends that once approached, he would accept. “He is not saying anything until the Prime Minister speaks because he does not want to jump the gun,” a close friend said.

[Flex]

Witness tampering scandal: PM calls on West to resign
By Ria Taitt Political Editor

KAMLA’S OLE MAS

In an address of 2,164 words last night, made necessary by the allegations against the Attorney General, the Prime Minister dedicated virtually one line to her outgoing Attorney General Anand Ramlogan.

“The Attorney General has vehemently denied the allegation” (of witness tampering), she said.

But Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar went to town on Police Complaints Authority (PCA) Director David West, criticised the actions of her outgoing National Security Minister Gary Griffith and waded into Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley.

The Prime Minister suggested that Griffith had a moral obligation to tell her if and when Ramlogan had asked him to place a call to West (seeking to have West withdraw his witness statement).

“The question is whether the Minister was not under an obligation to inform me, as the Prime Minister, that he made such a call. The situation would have been very different had such a request not been made and this matter been brought to my earlier attention,” she said, noting that Griffith admitted to making “such a call”.

The Prime Minister went after West, whose resignation she vociferously called for and whose position she insisted had now been severely compromised. She asserted West’s office as Director of the PCA had been compromised and brought into disrepute by the allegations, along with the office of the Attorney General and the Minister of National Security.

“I cast no aspersions on the capacity or performance of those that hold these positions, but cannot have these offices be so embroiled in conflict and controversy eroding public confidence in the institutions which they lead.... What is also of equally grave concern to me, as it must be to the nation, is the compromised position of the Director of the PCA, arising out of this situation. The question must arise as to why he did not make it known to me or to His Excellency President Anthony Carmona when the position of heading the PCA was offered to him in November,” the Prime Minister stated.

“Further,” she asked, “why did he wait until now to make public this matter.”

“The head of the Police Complaints Authority has the responsibility to investigate complaints against police officers. He would find himself doing so now while he himself has filed a matter for investigation to the Commissioner of Police,” the Prime Minister stated.

She added: “The threat of conflict of interest or perception thereof clearly emerges and compromises the role of the head of the PCA”.

The ball is now in the President’s court as to whether he would heed the Prime Minister’s statements and remove West from office.

All this happened in the process of telling the nation that she had fired or as she put it—“asked for the resignations of” the Attorney General and Griffith.

She said she received the resignation of the Attorney General, who has been replaced by former High Commissioner to the UK, Garvin Nicholas.

Griffith, who has been replaced by Brigadier General Carl Alfonso, (a former executive director at the Prime Minister’s residence and Diplomatic Centre), later stated that he did not tender his resignation.

Both Ramlogan and Griffith are “embroiled” in the witness tampering allegation drama. The Prime Minister’s reshuffle went further though, and she threw out three other members of her Government—Emmanuel George and Embau Moheni.

The shock revocation was that of Senate President Timothy Hamel-Smith, for which the Prime Minister gave no elaboration.

Questions now arise as to who would replace Hamel-Smith as all the government members of Senate have ministerial portfolios, with the exception of James Lambert, the Vice President.

The Senate requires two members on the Government side to not have portfolios in order to serve as President and Vice President, especially since the President of the Senate acts for the President of the Republic when he is abroad.

It means that someone may have to be relieved of their ministerial portfolio in order to have the Senate properly constituted.

The other new faces to the Cabinet are:

* Brent Sancho, former national footballer, has now been added to the Cabinet as Minister of Sport, ( leaving Rupert Griffith once again with Science and Technology)

* Christine Newallo-Hosein, a former Advisor to the Prime Minister at the Ministry of the People and Social Development, as Minister of the People and

* Kwasi Mutema, Minister in the Ministry in Works and Infrastructure.

George’s justice portfolio is now added to Prakash Ramadhar’s Ministry of Legal Affairs; and Stacy Roopnarine, was moved from Works and assigned to Gender, Youth and Child Development.

The five new members of the Government would be in office for a maximum of seven months as the country is on the “cusp” of a general election.

The Prime Minister spent much of her address criticising Rowley, saying he had an obligation to inform the President, if the knew, about the alleged witness tampering allegation.

“Failure by the Opposition Leader to do so at the time when he was consulted about the appointment by myself- we had discussions...it would also have been obligatory upon him to have informed His Excellency.

Failure by the Opposition Leader to do so at the time does create doubt to any independent observer as to why no mention was made at the time of the appointment in November.... Given the political sensitivity and nature of the alleged incidents it would have been not just prudent but mandatory that both myself and His Excellency, the President be informed. Withholding such information has seriously compromised the appointment of the Director of the PCA,” the Prime Minister said.

She also chastised Rowley for not disclosing that West was involved as a witness in the defamation lawsuit brought by Ramlogan against him. “Had there been a disclosure by the Opposition Leader of the personal interest in a legal matter involving himself and the Director of the PCA at the point of his nomination to be head of the PCA, the conflict of interest would have been declared,” the Prime Minister said.

[Bourbon]

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/King-I-was-fired-over-Ish-and-Steve-extradition-290993051.html

King: I was fired over Ish and Steve ‘extradition’
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 5, 2015 at 8:20 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 5, 2015 at 8:20 PM ECT
Former Government minister Mary King said on Wednesday she was fired from the Cabinet because she supported the extradition of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

In May, 2011, King was fired as then Minister of Planning, Restructuring and Gender Affairs after questions were raised as to whether she breached the law when she failed to disclose her pecuniary and family interest in a software engineering company, Ixanos Ltd, which won a $100,000 Government website development contract from her ministry.

King said in a letter to the Express she was fired because of her position that the businessmen be extradited.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are charged with a series of criminal offences arising out of the construction of the Piarco Airport Development Project dating back to 2002.

“Sometime after I was fired it was reported to me that in conversation with a Cabinet minister my name came up and that minister’s aggressive response was that ‘she wanted to extradite Ish and Steve, our colleagues and financiers’,” King said.

“Indeed, I was very strident in my advice to the AG, Ramlogan that their (Ish and Steve) alleged comrades in crime had been already tried and jailed in the US so we should stop dragging our feet and get on with the case to extradite them,” she continued.

“With the Section 34 fiasco yet to come to the Cabinet and then to the Parliament, it would appear that I was a liability to the success of what appeared to keep them not only out of jail in the US but out of jail, full stop!” she stated.

“I had to go and one COP ex-minister was very vocal in broadcasting this message to the public, while others fed misinformation via the media,” stated King.

She pointed that investigations into the allegations made against her with respect to the contract resulted to nothing.

She stated that an investigator from the Global Organisation of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC), Canada, came to this country to investigate the complaint against her since she was and still is the secretary to that organisation

“In his report he stated that he found no fault in my activity. Still, I was humiliated and my family publicly embarrassed,” stated King.

King stated that Anand Ramlogan was fired as Attorney General because the consensus in the public domain was that he had to go.

“However, Messrs Griffith and West who stood up for what is correct and for justice were roundly and verbosely condemned by the PM; one was fired and the other recommended to the President for dismissal. Principle and integrity are of no import to this governing administration,” stated King.

[Bakes]

“I had to go and one COP ex-minister was very vocal in broadcasting this message to the public, while others fed misinformation via the media,” stated King.

Smells like Anil.

[Bourbon]

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/DPP-letter-blocks-trial-delay-293307541.html

DPP letter blocks trial delay
Lawyers for accused in repeal of Section 34 seek Privy Council hearing around May 2016

By By Denyse Renne denyse.renne@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Feb 21, 2015 at 9:12 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 21, 2015 at 9:12 PM ECT
Attorneys seeking the interest of businessmen Ameer Edoo and Steve Ferguson over the repeal of Section 34 at the Privy Council have asked for the hearing to take place no sooner than May 2016.

But this request was thwarted, following the intervention of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard SC, in a letter to the regis­trar of the Privy Council.

Information received by the Sun­day Express stated the request for deferring the appeal was made by attorneys for Ferguson and Edoo, and

agreed to by attorneys retained by the Office of the Attorney General (AG).

At the time, Anand Ramlogan was then AG.

The State’s legal representatives are Lord David Pannick QC and Alan Newman QC while Edward Fitzgerald QC is seeking the interest of the businessmen.

In his letter to the registrar, Gas­pard, who is appearing as an interes­ted party in the proceedings, stated he was not in favour of the appeal being “unduly delayed”. He also poin­ted out attorneys seeking the interest of the State never informed his legal representatives of the May 2016 date.

Contacted yesterday evening, Gaspard would only confirm he wrote the registrar of the Privy Council.

Following Gaspard’s letter, sour­ces say the May 2016 date was quashed and the appeal will now be heard on October 20.

When the Sunday Express contac­ted Gaspard yesterday afternoon, he confirmed he had written to the Privy Council.

The Sunday Express contacted Registrar of the Privy Council Louise Di Mambro on Thursday morning, and she confirmed “there was some legal wrangling regarding a date for the hearing being heard on or about May 2016”.

“There was some controversy about it being listed in 2016 and, now, it’s all settled for October 2015,” Di Mambro said.

Di Mambro said the appeal for the businessmen and businesses was lodged on January 12, 2015.

Ferguson, along with Edoo and Maritime Life (Caribbean) Ltd

(Mari­time General Insurance Com­pany Ltd and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Ltd), were chosen as test cases, following the repeal of Section 34.

Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 sought to abolish preliminary enquiries for serious criminal matters in specific categories and stated if cases had not been started within ten years of the date an offence had been committed, the accused could apply to have the matter dismissed.

Following the public outcry, seve­ral of the accused who sought to benefit from Section 34 filed con­sti­tutional motions after the legislation was repealed on Septem­ber 12, 2012.

Shortly after, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired former justice minister Herbert Volney over Section 34. Persad-Bissessar at the time said Volney had misled the Cabinet.

When the controversial section was proclaimed on August 31, 2012, 42 applicants filed motions to have their criminal cases dismissed.

They included, former prime minister Basdeo Panday; his wife, Oma; Ferguson; Edoo; businessman Ishwar Galbaransingh; former Uni­ted National Congress (UNC) ministers Brian Kuei Tung, Russell Huggins, Carlos John; and others.

Both Ferguson and Galbaransingh are facing a series of money laun­de­ring and fraud charges in the United States, as well as char­ges of corrup­tion relating to the construc­tion of the Piarco Interna­tion­al Airport.

In 2011, Ramlogan had decided against extraditing Ferguson and Galbaransingh since according to him, all avenues for legal redress were not yet exhausted and the men still had constitutional rights.

Ramlogan said his decision was based on advice given by James Lewis QC.

Lewis, in his advice, stated he was assured Ferguson and Galbaransingh will face a speedy trial in T&T.

In his legal opinion dated Decem­ber 17, 2011, Lewis said, “On the other hand, I am informed the claim­ants can be tried in Trinidad and Tobago almost immediately on the same conduct,” Lewis said.

The outcome of the court matters in T&T, as well as the Privy Council, hinges on when the US can re-request their extradition.

In an immediate response to ques­tions posed by the Sunday Express on Wednesday, regarding the request by the men’s attorneys, public affairs specialist in the Justice Department in Washington DC, USA, Peter Carr said: “As a matter of policy, we generally do not comment on extra­dition matters unless and until a defendant appears in the US.”

When the Sunday Express con­tac­ted Ramlogan yesterday afternoon and asked for his reasons against not

applying to the Privy Council for an earlier hearing and why he agreed to

the May 2016 hearing, given the public interest over Section 34, he said, “I think you should refer all questions

concerning matters of the State to the current Attorney General”.

The Sunday Express pointed out to Ramlogan he was the substantive attorney general at the time, but the call dis­connected.

Several efforts to contact Ramlo­gan again were unsuccessful.

This is not the first incident of the Office of the AG and the Office of the DPP clashing.

On June 4 last year, Fitzgerald, at the Court of Appeal hearing, told the court the AG (Ramlogan) had given the undertaking should the Court of Appeal rule against the trio, then the State would not object to conditional leave being granted.

This means the State will not object to there being a stay of crimi­nal proceedings before Magis­trate Ejenny Espinet and the Section 34 application in the High Court until the Privy Council delivers its ruling.

Attorney Ian Benjamin, who

sought the interest of the DPP had told

the court Gaspard would not be adop­-

ting such a position as the State’s.

Benjamin had told the court: “The DPP does not think it is appropriate to consent to stay the committal proceedings. He (DPP) did indicate there has been significant progress made at the Magistrates’ Court and he wants to progress with those pro­ceed­ings”.

Gaspard had entered the proceed­ings as an interested party.

After hearing the parties involved, the panel ruled in favour of the trio.


PM congratulated

speedy hearing


On April 6, 2013, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar issued a statement following Dean-Armorer’s ruling on Section 34.

In the statement, the PM claimed she was pleased for the State’s his­-

toric legal victory in this unprece­den­ted constitutional case. “The ruling comprehensively dis­missed the various grounds of challenge to the repeal of Section 34.

“As noted by the court, the Gov­­ern­­ment moved swiftly to repeal Section 34 and drafted the repeal in a

manner that nullified any legitimate expectations and retroactively cleared

the way for the defendants to be tried.”

The PM had also said, “I was par­tic­ularly pleased with the expeditious manner in which this case was heard and determined as it was obviously in the public interest to have this matter dealt with very quickly.”



About the case




When the lawsuits were initially brought before High Court Judge Mira Dean-Armorer, it was agreed during a preliminary hearing the trio’s lawsuits (Ferguson, Edoo and Maritime) would be used as a test case, which would decide the fate of the other applicants. Dean-

Armorer, in judgment delivered in April, 2013, dismissed all the grounds raised by the applicants, paving the way for the appeal.

On June 4, 2014, the Appeal Court upheld Dean-Armorer’s ruling.

The appeal panel—Judges Allan Mendonca, Peter Jamadar and

Gregory Smith, in a 57-page ruling, dismissed the grounds raised by the businessmen and companies challenging the repeal of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.

[Flex]

Anand’s Section 34 defamation lawsuit: PNM leader acts after receiving legal advice
By Ria Taitt Political Editor

ROWLEY REMOVES AL-RAWI

Faris Al-Rawi has been removed as instructing attorney for Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley in the Section 34 defamation lawsuit brought by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan against Rowley. The move comes less than a week after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar suggested that Al-Rawi’s status as both witness and attorney could be in breach of the Legal Profession Act.
The PM called on the Law Association, particularly the disciplinary committee of the Law Association, to pronounce on the issue.
In making the announcement in a statement yesterday, Rowley said the Prime Minister, who raised the issue at a political meeting, “spent all of her paid political time for a second Monday in a row focusing on ...what she declared to be a ‘private legal matter’ brought by Ramlogan against me.
“The private lawsuit brought by Anand Ramlogan against me in the Section 34 matter has been fixed for trial in December 2015. Mr Ramlogan is represented by a battery of lawyers headed by eminent senior counsel in the person of Mrs. Deborah Peake SC, who leads Mr Gerald Ramdeen instructed by Mr Varun Debideen,” Rowley said.
“It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister now leads a charge of objection while the legal team for Mr Ramlogan in this private lawsuit has to date not made any objection as to Mr Al-Rawi’s appearance as a witness for me whilst acting as an instructing attorney for Al-Rawi & Co,” Rowley stated.
Rowley said his lead attorney Reginald Armour SC has rendered advice to him on the matter of Al-Rawi giving evidence as a witness whilst being a principal of the instructing attorneys on record in the matter.
“This advice conclusively demonstrates the propriety of Mr Al-Rawi’s actions as an attorney-at-law,” Rowley said.
“I now disclose this advice given to me by Mr Armour SC to set the record straight.” (See below)
“The ventilation of the scandal surrounding Section 34 is of paramount concern to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. So as not to allow the Prime Minister’s unabated attempts at distraction to take root, Mr Al-Rawi will now pass over the role of instructing attorney to another and remain a witness of fact in the private lawsuit brought by Anand Ramlogan against me,” Rowley said.
“Mr Al-Rawi will do this notwithstanding the fact that neither Mr Ramlogan nor his eminent attorneys have to date lodged any complaint in the court as to Mr Al-Rawi’s role and function in the matter. It is noteworthy that Mr Ramlogan’s legal team includes Mrs Peake SC who was, until last year, vice-chairman of the disciplinary committee of the Law Association,” Rowley stated.
He said Al-Rawi’s evidence is uncontested and stands in the court.
He said the Prime Minister and her minions have issues to answer, including the following:
(i) Why does the private legal case brought by Mr Ramlogan against me and which deals squarely with the Section 34 scandal bother the Prime Minister so terribly?
(ii) Why does the Prime Minister so desperately want to intervene in my defence to this private legal case brought by Mr Ramlogan and in the wider issues surrounding this case by terrorising witnesses and the operation of my defence?
(iii) Why does the Prime Minister so desperately persist in leaving Mr Ramlogan out of the picture and away from any responsibility in relation to her rantings?
“The Prime Minister has serious issues to answer in this matter as we get to the truth of Section 34. They cannot run from the inevitable and the PNM will ensure that there are no distractions from the truth,” he said.
Rowley noted that Police Complaints Authority (PCA) director David West is a witness of fact in this private lawsuit who speaks to matters during and after his time as the head of the Central Authority of Trinidad and Tobago with responsibility for extraditions.
West has since alleged in a statement to the police that Ramlogan requested him to withdraw his witness statement in this lawsuit in exchange for his appointment as PCA director.
Former national security minister Gary Griffith has also given a statement to the police, alleging that Ramlogan requested that he ask West if he had withdrawn the document.
Both Ramlogan and Griffith were fired by the Prime Minister, who has stated that West should resign as PCA director or his appointment should be revoked by the President.

ARMOUR’S ADVICE

Reginald Armour SC has stated that Faris Al-Rawi has not committed any act of professional misconduct.
“That said, and, in your best interest to ensure that the trial of this matter is not derailed and that the Court is enabled to do justice in this matter on the real issues before it, in all the circumstances I have advised Mr Al-Rawi to remove himself from the record as your instructing attorney, and to remain simply as a necessary witness of fact in this matter,” Armour stated.
He said the reasons for this are:
1) At the material time, Al-Rawi was the instructing attorney on record, he was not then or has not ever acted as your advocate i.e. as counsel;
2) Further, and, at the material time, specific circumstances existed which made Al-Rawi a necessary witness, for Rowley, notwithstanding being at the time his instructing attorney.
Armour said on the important defence of justification available to Rowley, Al-Rawi’s evidence was and remains necessary as a “witness of truth”.
He said a further relevant issue pleaded in the defence is that of the important constitutional role of the Opposition Leader to be afforded all requisite latitude by the Courts to speak freely on matter of public interest; there were a number of defamation lawsuits on-going and being brought by Ramlogan against Rowley and others against Rowley, meant that his choice of Al-Rawi was informed by the fact “of the stretched legal resources” available to him (Rowley).
Armour also examined Rule 35, Part A of the Code of Ethics of the Legal Profession Act and its application in the Commonwealth to buttress his case that Al-Rawi did not commit any act of professional misconduct.
Armour said the fact is that he (Armour) is the lead attorney. Noting that it was on his advice that Al-Rawi signed the witness statement in question, Armour stated: “I stand by that advice. It is unfortunate that Mr Al-Rawi should be pilloried for this and wrongly so. My advice was necessary, well within the professional judgment which I was required to make and was in your best interest.”
He stated that he had advised Al-Rawi that Mr Anthony Bullock is to replace him as the instructing attorney “so that the focus could return to the real and important issues in this matter and also because it is incumbent on me as team leader not to permit Mr Al-Rawi to be wronged accused, not to permit his role as instructing attorney in this matter to be used as a basis, wrongly in my view, to distract from these issues”.

[Flex]

Rowley: Warner must tell the 'whole truth'
PNM leader wants answers on Section 34
By Joel Julien (Express).

EMBATTLED Member of Parliament Jack Warner must tell the "whole truth" about the Section 34 fiasco so the country can determine if there is any merit to his claims that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has unduly influenced his extradition matter, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said yesterday.

Speaking at an Independent Liberal Party (ILP) cottage meeting in Chaguanas last Thursday night mere hours after being released from prison, Warner said, "Kamla having jailed me, as of tonight the gloves are off."

Rowley was asked for his take on these issues at a news conference at the Office of the Opposition Leader at Charles Street in Port of Spain yesterday.

"If there is any truth in that Mr Warner is in a position to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I draw your attention to how this said Government dealt with Section 34 and the other two financiers when Mr Warner was in the Cabinet, and it is my view that Mr Warner has information which can elucidate for us what happened with Section 34 in a Cabinet of which he was a part," Rowley said.

"And what I would say to Mr Warner on that subject is if he wants to tell us the story, tell us the whole story.

“Two other financiers got themselves virtually freed from judicial action because the Cabinet took actions in the Parliament, at the level of the Cabinet, at the Office of the President with an outcome in the court under the infamous Section 34 action of this Government to ensure that those financiers did not have their day in court as they should have had, and if he is handled differently now and he wants to complain about his treatment he must tell us the whole story so we can compare apples with the oranges that he talking about," he said.

Rowley likened the indictment against Warner as that of a family member being held for "something unpleasant" and therefore he feels "hurt and let down".

"It is very much like a family member being held for something unpleasant and while you may not as a member of that family have done it yourself and can be held accountable, there is a feeling of being hurt and let down because as a nation we are a family, and if we are so represented we can feel nothing but hurt. But as we say, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty so we need to temper our expressions and it is something we would have preferred not to have been attached to us," Rowley said.

Rambachan's comment shocking
 
Rowley yesterday dismissed calls by Works and Infrastructure Minister Dr Suruj Rambachan, the United National Congress' deputy political leader, for the People's National Movement (PNM) to explain its position with Warner and the Independent Liberal Party (ILP) in the light of the indictment facing Warner.

Rowley described Rambachan's comment as "shocking" since Warner was once Persad-Bissessar's "rock and confidant" and held several positions of power, both in the UNC and in the Cabinet.

Warner was always "stoutly defended" by Persad-Bissessar up to his resignation in April 2013, Rowley said.

"We will brook no defence of the PNM with respect to Mr Warner's personal problems. I take no pleasure in Mr Warner's suffering and his family's pain and I trust that he will be subject of free and fair judicial processes in Trinidad and Tobago and outside of Trinidad and Tobago and wherever it is now, let the law take its course," Rowley said.

Rowley said it is "disingenuous" for persons to try to create a "specific association" between the PNM and the ILP.

"I did see some persons making an issue of the fact that I shook Mr Warner's hand when he turned up in the march and extended his hand to me. I was too well brought up not to have manners and Mr Warner visiting Diego Martin West, he is a parliamentary colleague and if I shake his hand I don't know that should be a problem. I would be quite disappointing to my grandparents who raised me if I did otherwise," he said.

[Flex]

Rowley: Hamel-Smith has Section 34 questions to answer
By Joel Julien (Express).

WHILE Timothy Hamel-Smith was acting as president he tried to “dupe” the nation by saying he found “nothing out of the ordinary” after investigating the Section 34 fiasco, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said last night.

Rowley made the statement as he delivered the feature address at the People’s National Movement’s political meeting in Morvant, Laventille on Tuesday night.

On September 18, 2012 Rowley led a march to President’s House as he hand-delivered a petition, with more than 25,000 signatures, calling for then president George Maxwell Richards to demand a written explanation from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar as to why the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act was prematurely selected to become law.

Richards was out of the country at the time and then senate president Hamel-Smith was acting as president in his absence.

“I said to the president who was the acting president then the said Timothy Hamel-Smith. I said to him president, your Excellency I will like you to conduct and investigation into how the Cabinet note got to Mr Maxwell Richards to cause him to have proclaimed that clause.

“Investigate the entire process and tell us how this happened because Mrs Kamla PErsad-Bissessar and her government had given the Parliament the assurance that no such thing would happen.

“And then the president wrote me a letter under private and confidential cover, meaning ‘I am talking to you but don’t tell anybody what I tell you’ and he said to me then in that situation where a government could have so misconducted itself.

“The acting president wrote me then and said ‘I have investigated the matter, looked at all the documents and conducted the investigation as requested’ and these were his word to me ’I have found nothing out of the ordinary’.

“In other words there was nothing for anybody to account for. That was the finding of Mr Timothy Hamel-Smith, acting president who wrote me in defence of the UNC (United National Congress) government of which he was very much a part,” Rowley said.

Rowley said however he eventually received the Cabinet note relating to the Section 34 situation.

“The Cabinet said to president Richards in asking him to proclaim Section 34 that it is required that this be done to appoint masters of the Supreme Court.

“That is one of the biggest lies ever put in a Cabinet Note in Trinidad and Tobago. They duped the president,” Rowley said.

Rowley said Hamel-Smth then tried to “dupe” the country.

“Even when he (Hamel-Smith) investigated the matter when ten of thousands of you were on the street he then tried to dupe me to tell me on your behalf that he has investigated the matter and he has found nothing out of the ordinary,” he said.

Rowley said “birds of a feather flock together”.

“How can you trust these people? How can you trust any of them?” Rowley said.

[Flex]

No $8m Section 34 conspiracy.
By Anna Ramdass (Express).

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has once again dismissed allegations by corruption-accused Jack Warner—this time, on an $8.3 million Section 34 freedom conspiracy—as lies.

Warner called a news conference at the Hotel Normandie in St Ann's yesterday, where he presen­ted a sworn affidavit claiming Persad-Bissessar accepted $8.3 million in cheques from United National Congress financiers Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson at the Tunapuna home of businessman Ralph Gopaul in May 2010.

Warner claimed the Prime Minister indicated to him the creation of the Justice Ministry would “help our friends”. He also said the Section 34 debacle was designed to give freedom to these two men.

Galbaransingh and Ferguson are accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and bid-rigging in relation to two construction packages for the Piarco Airport construction project. The charges indicated the alleged acts took place in the United States and elsewhere between 1996 and 2001.

Their extradition request was quashed by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in 2011, who ordered they be tried in Trinidad.

False and without foundation

Following Warner's news conference yesterday, the Prime Minister issued a release stating his news conference “was a damp squib littered with lies and more lies”.

“Let me state very clearly and unequivocally that these accusations are false and without any foundation whatsoever,” she stated.

Persad-Bissessar said she hoped the observers “will by now have noted the pattern of increasingly far-fetched claims being made by this man and how quickly each set of his claims unravels once the facts are known. Everybody knows his present plight and why he is becoming so desperate. He is a stranger to the truth”.

Warner is accused of corruption, fraud and money laundering by the United States with respect to his tenure at FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). Warner is currently out on $2.5 million bail.

In dealing with Warner's claim that Galbaransingh and Ferguson paid millions to the Prime Minister for their freedom, Persad-Bissessar stated due process in law was followed with respect to the case of these two men.

She said the record shows Justice Boodoosingh, presiding in the Port of Spain High Court, stayed in November 2011 any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited as being “unjust, oppressive and unlawful”.

She noted this was well before the proclamation of Section 34 (in fact, almost one year before). “So that claim of a connection is, as others, absolute nonsense,” she said.

Persad-Bissessar noted Section 34 was passed unanimously by all sides of the House in 2012.

No instruction to AG

The Prime Minister noted yesterday the move to repeal came within 24 hours of receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to do so.

She said she fired then-justice minister Herbert Volney, as he “had given erroneous advice to the Cabinet and had failed to accurately represent the position and views of the CJ and DPP”.

The Prime Minister attached the statement she delivered in September 2012 with respect to this.

“It gave me no pleasure to dismiss him, but all ministers in my Government are accountable and when tough decisions have needed to be taken, I have taken them,” she said.

On Warner's claim that Persad-Bissessar gave instructions to Attorney General Garvin Nicholas to sign papers against him (Warner), the Prime Minister said she gave no such instruction.

She said Warner should take his allegations to the Integrity Commission—as he and others have done before, and for which she has been cleared on every occasion.

“Let him take his allegations to the police with the evidence he claims to have. This will put a stop to this nonsense,” she said.

RELATED NEWS

Warner: $9.3m bribe passed in Section 34 fiasco
PM’s lawyers on high alert
By Gail Alexander (Guardian).

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has struck down embattled Independent Liberal Party (ILP) leader Jack Warner’s fresh allegations on the Section 34 issue as being crazy and false and has asked her lawyers to take the requisite action to stop “this malicious misinformation once and for all.”

This after Warner held a media briefing at the Normandie Hotel in Port-of-Spain yesterday, where he read out a statement on the Section 34 issue which he had completed with Justice of the Peace Anthony Soulette on May 29, the day after he was released from prison after he failed to secure bail when he first appeared in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court on charges related to his dealings as a former Fifa vice-president.

The statement chiefly alleges a conspiracy on the Section 34 matter by Government officials, spearheaded by Persad-Bissessar, in order to “assist” former UNC financiers Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

Warner alleged that followed “receipt” of a bribe, totalling $8.3 million, prior to the May 2010 general election.

Detailing a series of alleged developments, Warner alleged that the Prime Minister, in an effort to appease the US government for “her misrepresentation and mishandling of the Galbaransingh/Ferguson extradition and more so to neutralise a powerful political opponent with the capacity to lessen her party’s chances at the upcoming polls, she believes a golden opportunity has arisen for her to get rid of me based on the US charges.”

Warner, who also made claims about how former Justice Minister Herbert Volney was fired, said he was praying the PM would deny his statements, send him a pre-action protocol letter, refer him to her attorney or talk about it on the platform.

He said he had two more issues “more damning” than yesterday’s allegations to reveal and would also be doing an expose on the waste water treatment project.

After being asked about Warner’s claims regarding Galbaransingh, Ferguson and Section 34, Persad-Bissessar, responding via statement, said: “I don’t intend to waste any more time on Mr Warner’s ludicrous behaviour and crazy claims.

“The press conference held by Jack Warner was a damp squib littered with lies and more lies. I am responding at the earliest opportunity in the hope this will ensure that these outrageous claims by Warner are treated with the contempt they deserve.”

She added: “Let me state very clearly and unequivocally that these accusations are false and without any foundation whatsoever.

“I hope that observers will by now have noted the pattern of increasingly far-fetched claims being made by this man and how quickly each set of his claims unravels once the facts are known. Everybody knows his present plight and why he is becoming so desperate. He is a stranger to the truth.”

Timeline support

In putting a timeline as she refuted his claims, Persad-Bissessar said: “The record shows that Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, stayed in November 2011 any move to have Galbaransingh and Ferguson extradited as being ‘unjust, oppressive and unlawful.’

“This was well before the proclamation of Section 34 (in fact, almost one year before). So that claim of a connection is, as others, absolute nonsense.”

She added: “Section 34 was passed unanimously by all sides of the House in 2012. It was subsequently repealed within 24 hours of receiving advice from the DPP to do so.

“As I stated at the time, I dealt with Minister (Volney) as I needed to do. He had given erroneous advice to the Cabinet and had failed to represent accurately the position and views of the Chief Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Citing the contents of the statement she gave in September 2012 on the matter of Section 34, Persad-Bissessar added: “It gave me no pleasure to dismiss him but all ministers in my Government are accountable and when tough decisions have needed to be taken, I have taken them.”

She also denied Warner’s allegations that she instructed Attorney General Garvin Nicholas to sign his extradition papers.

“In fact nothing has been signed by the AG to date. Another lie.

“Let Mr Warner take his allegations to the Integrity Commission, as he and others have done before and for which I have been cleared on every occasion. Let him take his allegations to the police with the evidence he claims to have. This will put a stop to this nonsense,” she said.

She added: “I have a duty to the people of T&T to lead this country and work tirelessly on their behalf. I remain focused on the issues that really matter and am doing everything I can to improve the lives of all the people.

“ I trust Mr Warner’s desperate and fallacious claims will be treated with the derision they deserve by the people of T&T.”

Contacted yesterday, Galbaransingh said he had not seen Warner’s statement or heard it and could not comment. Ferguson didn’t reply to calls.

Rowley shocked by Jack’s claims
By Kalifa Clyne (Guardian).

Political Leader of the People’s National Movement Dr Keith Rowley says the latest allegations levelled at Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar by her former Cabinet colleague, Independent Liberal Party (ILP) leader Jack Warner, are shocking.

During a press conference at the Normandie Hotel yesterday, Warner claimed to have had discussions with Persad-Bissessar regarding plans to help United National Congress financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

Warner also claimed to have been in a room with three parties and witnessing cheques being passed between the parties and Persad-Bissessar.

He attempted to tie the events to the proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

Rowley, who spoke to media before meeting with the Joint Trade Union Movement yesterday afternoon, said he was still in shock after hearing the allegations minutes earlier.

“I’m still in shock because even I couldn’t have believed that it was as bad as that.

“I had my suspicions but this is something where when I entered politics in 1980, I never dreamt that I would encounter this sort of thing in Trinidad and Tobago. I am still in shock,” he said.

Rowley also commented on the national debate which the Debates Commission announced would take place on August 26 and 27.

Rowley, who said the commission had assured him the debate would take place after nomination day, said while a national debate would be useful he would not be relying on it to debate with the population.

“There is no anxiety. We have been debating with the population and Government for the longest while.

“The biggest debating chamber in the country is the Parliament and I have been debating there for the longest while.

“The Prime Minister has been largely absent and she took the unprecedented step of using her majority to throw me out of the debating chamber so we are not exercised by any debate or lack thereof,” he added.

He said the PNM could speak to the people of T&T with or without any contrived debate.

“The national debate would be a useful thing. We said so from the beginning and we signed on to it very early. Other changes made by others, we are not concerned by that.

“It could be a useful thing if accomplished but if they don’t we get on with our campaigning as we have done for the past 60 years,” he added.

[Flex]

After Rowley raises bribery claims against PM on platform, CoP finally orders probe
By Kevon Felmine (Guardian).

Hours after Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley criticised police for not investigating an $8.3 million bribery claim against Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in connection with the Section 34 fiasco, acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams assigned the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau to probe the allegations.

The claims, which were made by Independent Liberal Party leader and former People’s Partnership MP Jack Warner at a news conference on July 13, allege Persad-Bissessar received cheques from United National Congress (UNC) financiers—Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson—in exchange for their freedom on pending criminal charges.

Speaking by telephone yesterday, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Operations) Glenn Hackett said it was only yesterday that Williams received the correspondence relating to the alleged conspiracy. However, he said he had not read the details of the matter. “Only this morning the Commissioner of Police received that correspondence and he has assigned it to the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau.

“I was there with the commissioner when he received it but I did not read or see the details so I cannot comment further,” Hackett said. At the People’s National Movement’s regional meeting at Harris Promenade, San Fernando, on Tuesday night, Rowley demanded that Williams initiate an investigation into Warner’s claims.

At the new conference at the Hotel Normandie, St Ann’s, on July 13 Warner showed a sworn affidavit which alleged Persad-Bissessar received the cheques at the Tunapuna home of businessman Ralph Gopaul in May 2010. Warner claimed that Persad-Bissessar told him that the Ministry of Justice would “help our friends” and Section 34 was allegedly created to ensure both men walked free.

In response, Persad-Bissessar said the allegations were all lies and the process of law was followed with respect to Galbaransingh and Ferguson’s case. She added that Section 34 was passed unanimously with the support of all sides of the House. Galbaransingh and Ferguson were indicted by the US for conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and bid-rigging in relation to the construction of the Piarco International Airport project between 1996 and 2001.

In 2011, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh threw out their extradition request and ordered that they be tried in Trinidad. Persad-Bissessar noted that  was done a year before the proclamation of Section 34. On Tuesday night, Rowley said he saw an affidavit signed by a Justice of the Peace and even met a man in Couva last Wednesday who informed him he was present at the 2010 meeting with Warner and Persad-Bissessar.

“I ask you tonight, is that what you expect with respect to law enforcement in Trinidad and Tobago? Is it that some people are above the law in Trinidad and Tobago? “And if allegations are made against you or whatever it is, I can say I am not investigating that because it’s your name being called?” Rowley asked.

“Tonight, I want to demand of the Commissioner of Police that he begin an investigation into the conspiracy of Section 34, where Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, is alleged to have done certain things and only a proper investigation with witnesses, statements and thorough examination will determine whether it is true or not.” 

Section 34

The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act was passed to abolish preliminary inquiries and replace it with paper reviews. This meant a Master of the High Court would review submissions in a matter and decide if there was sufficient evidence to take it to trial. Section 34 of the Act allowed those people who had matters before the court that were ten years or older to apply to a judge to have their case(s) dismissed, once the trial(s) had not begun.

This and five other sections were proclaimed by former president George Maxwell Richards on August 2012. However, a furore was created when Galbaransingh and Ferguson made an application to have their cases dismissed. Two weeks later and with mounting pressure from the public and civil society, an emergency sitting of the House of Representatives was called and Government repealed Section 34.

Former justice minister Herbert Volney, who had piloted the Bill in Parliament, was fired on September 20 and replaced by attorney Christlyn Moore. It was only in May 2014 that Volney accepted sole responsibility of the fiasco.

[Flex]

SECTION 34 OUTRAGE
By JADA LOUTOO (Newsday)

IT WAS a desire to appease major public outrage over the possibility that the Piarco Airport fraud accused would escape criminal prosecution, which led to the repeal of the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

This desire, according to British Queen’s Counsel Michael Beloff, who is seeking the interest of Maritime General — a company which sought freedom from prosecution under the controversial clause — was unfair and in violation of the Constitution as it targeted two persons, businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.

Beloff pointed to several speeches and sworn statements from fromer Attorney General Anand Ramlogan SC and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard SC, which he said, showed the repeal was prompted by negative public opinion over the issue. “It was a case of post public concern. Early proclamation meant the Piarco defendants would have been freed from prosecution and to cancel out any advantage they gained, that Amendment Act had to be passed,” Maritime General is one of the companies which filed a Section 34 application. There are 26 applications in all, filed by persons and companies which are seeking freedom from prosecution having, according to them, met the requirement under the legislation that their cases were ten years or older.

Beloff began his submissions before British Law Lords Neuberger, Mance, Sumption, Carwath and Hughes in Courtroom 1, located at the UK Supreme Court, Middlesex Guildhall, London.

Businessmen Steve Ferguson, Ameer Edoo and companies Maritime Life (Caribbean) Limited; Maritime General Insurance Company Limited and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Limited, have appealed the decisions of the local courts which dismissed their arguments challenging the constitutionality of the amendment to the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, which prevented the automatic dismissal of cases under the controversial Section 34.

Theirs are being used as a test case and are contending that the repeal of Section 34 on September 14, 2012, was unconstitutional and in violation of the basic principles of law. Hearings before the Judicial Committee are expected to end tomorrow. As he analysed the evidence in the case which related to both the former AG and the DPP, Beloff said the only plausible inference that could be drawn was that the public furore caused both to react in September 2012, leading to the eventual repeal. He also submitted it was improper for Parliament to consider public opinion and ignore the rights of those who stood to benefit under the legislation.

“You did need to and shouldn’t be swept up in policy and destroy the rights and expectations of persons by repealing legislation passed a year before,” Beloff charged. In response to a question by Lord Mance, Beloff said his clients would have been entitled to rely on the rights afforded to them under Section 34 and could not have anticipated a sudden about face by the executive and legislature, even if the rights they accrued were only for a few days before the section was repealed.

Beloff maintained had it not been for the public furore over the implications for the Piarco prosecutions, no one would have objected to the legislation.

According to him, the DPP made no protest, even during discussions with the Chief Justice and a joint committee of the government and judiciary, or when the section was proclaimed.

Alarm bells only rang on September 10, following the public furore, “that led him to change his mind.” “It wasn’t the prosecution that led to his change of mind but the public outcry,” Beloff maintained, pointing out that following a media statement which the DPP sent out expressing his concern and which was sent under the heading “Piarco Cases”, the Amendment Bill was rushed through Parliament in two days.

He added that it would be an abuse if the Piarco prosecutions continue given the DPP’s involvement in the repeal of Section 34.

“The DPP’s main concern was the Piarco prosecutions,” Beloff argued Also as part of the arguments before the British Law Lords is the contention that the rights given under Section 34, could not be taken away by Parliament retrospectively. “The Piarco defendants were in the gun-sights of the legislature,” he said. Beloff stated the act of the Parliament effectively breached the doctrine of Separation of Powers as it interfered with the appellants’ access to the courts and removed the rights they accrued under the clause.

“Inherent in the rule of law is that Parliament must not legislate contrary to the rule of law,” he said. The original Section 34 was intended to, after the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence was alleged to have been committed, give persons automatic freedom when they apply before a judge in chambers.

Section 34 was assented to 31 August 2012. Between 10 and 12 September 2012, the appellants made applications under the clause on the basis that more than ten years had passed since the date of their alleged offences.

On 13 September 2012, an amendment act was passed during an emergency sitting of Parliament and the following day assented to, which repealed the clause retrospectively.

The Section 34 applications are still before the local courts and have been adjourned to this month. Those seeking to have their decade-old cases discharged are: Russell Huggins, Renee Pierre, Anderson Meharris, Amrith Maharaj, Aman Harripersad, Collin Catlyn, Oswald Catlyn, Ishwar Galbaransingh, Northern Construction Ltd, Carlos John, Ameer Edoo, Steve Ferguson, Brian Kuei Tung, Barbara Gomes, John Henry Smith, Brent Alvarez, Carlton Roop, Dane Lewis, Montgomery Diaz, Maritime Life Caribbean, Sadiq Baksh, Fidelity Finance and Leasing Co Ltd, Basdeo and Oma Panday, Maritime General and Krishna Persad.

Arguments continue in the Privy Council today. Also representing Ferguson, Edoo and Maritime are local attorneys Fyard Hosein SC and Sophia Chote SC.

The DPP is represented by Ian Benjamin. Appearing for the State is Peter Knox QC.

[Sando prince]

Section 34 appeal dismissed PC rules against Edoo, Ferguson *

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20160125/news/pc-rules-against-edoo-ferguson

Rickie Ramdass

THE State has been given the green light to proceed with the preliminary enquiry against a number of contractors and former government members who are accused of fraud-related offences stemming from the construction of the new Piarco International Airport.

This comes after the London-based Privy Council yesterday dismissed appeals filed by businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ameer Edoo together with three companies challenging Parliament’s decision to repeal Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

Now that Ferguson and Edoo have exhausted all of their legal options, they will have to reappear before Senior Magistrate Ejenny Espinet at the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court for the continuation of the enquiry which had been on hold since September 2012, after the men made applications at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain to have the charges against them dismissed under the controversial section.

A date for the reappearance is yet to be set

[Flex]

GO TO TRIAL
By JADA LOUTOO (Newsday)

THE Privy Council yesterday dashed all hopes by businessmen and United National Congress (UNC) financiers Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson of not having to face trial in the local courts for their alleged involvement in the Piarco International Airport fraud scandals.

The UK Law Lords, presiding at the level of Trinidad and Tobago’s highest appellate Court, ruled that the repeal of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 did not specifically target the Piarco prosecutions – in which Galbaransingh and Ferguson among others, had been committed to stand trial — effectively throwing the case back into local hands.

In a 19-page judgment delivered yesterday, the Privy Council panel comprising Lords David Neuberger, Jonathan Mance, Jonathan Sumption, Robert Carnwath and Anthony Hughes put an end to the hope of the two and 40 other persons, that they will be spared prosecution under the controversial clause. In giving reasons for their decision, Lord Sumption held that the repeal of Section 34 by Parliament on September 14, 2012, simply altered the general law, by restoring it to what it had been before the controversial section was proclaimed weeks before, on August 31.

“The loss of a limitation defence which had existed for only two weeks was attributable to a legitimate change in the law and not to a legislative intrusion upon the judicial function,” the Law Lords ruled. They further held that rights to be acquitted and discharged without trial were a violation of the Constitution and not a “normal and certainly not a necessary characteristic of a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.” Lord Sumption also noted that the amending act only added emphasis to ensure that no one would have been able to take advantage of the ten-year limitation period. “Parliament, having resolved upon a comprehensive repeal, could not sensibly have contemplated an arbitrary distinction between those who had been quick enough to make their application during the brief period of a fortnight, when Section 34 was in force, and those who had not, two categories whose position was for all practical purposes the same,” Lord Sumption held.

Businessmen Steve Ferguson, Ameer Edoo and companies Maritime Life (Caribbean) Limited; Maritime General Insurance Company Limited and Fidelity Finance and Leasing Company Limited, had appealed decisions of the local courts which dismissed their arguments challenging the constitutionality of the amendment to the Act, which prevented the automatic dismissal of cases under the controversial Section 34.

Their matters were being used as a test case and contended that the repeal of Section 34 on September 14, 2012, was unconstitutional and in violation of the basic principles of law. In their judgment, the Law Lords noted that Ferguson, Edoo and the companies could only have succeeded on their separation of powers argument if it showed the amending legislation which repealed Section 34, specifically targeted only a limited category of people, including themselves.

“The Amending Act not only looks like general legislation. It is general legislation,” Lord Sumption explained. “It affects all cases to which Section 34 would otherwise apply, past, present or future.

This includes a very large number of persons and cases against which it cannot have been targeted.” Ferguson and Edoo’s argument that the current criminal proceedings against them would imperil their liberty and property was also dismissed by the Law Lords who held that the “right to be acquitted and discharged without trial and irrespective of innocence or guilt” was not such a right protected by the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

“The loss of that right did not deprive the appellants of their liberty or property. It merely exposed them to a criminal trial in which they might or might not be found to have committed serious criminal offences. The fairness of that trial continues to be protected by the Constitution. If at the end of the process the appellants are convicted and sentenced, any adverse effect on their liberty and property will arise from a judicial proceeding. It will have occurred by due process of law,” Lord Sumption said in the judgment.

Ferguson and Edoo also failed to convince the Law Lords that they had a legitimate expectation of being freed from prosecution under Section 34.

“In this particular case, the reasons which have led the Board to conclude that the Act was constitutional necessarily mean that it was justifiable in a society with a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual,” Lord Sumption said.

Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC, — whose conduct was faulted by Ferguson and Edoo in their appeals – was also absolved by the Law Lords, who said there was no evidence Gaspard had already resolved to promote the repeal of the section when he approached then Attorney General Anand Ramlogan three days after Section 34 was proclaimed and became public.

They held it was ‘entirely proper for the DPP to consult or advise the law officers on matters relating to the operation of the criminal law, but this does not extend to campaigning for a change which will directly affect a current case which his office is prosecuting.

“It is, however, fair to say that he had been placed without warning or prior consultation in an embarrassing position, especially in the light of the outcome of the extradition proceedings and the stage which the proceedings had reached when section 34 was brought into force,” Lord Sumption noted.

In their concluding reasons, the five British Law Lords further noted that there was no evidence of prejudice on the part of the DPP which will render their prosecutions as an abuse of process.

[Sando prince]

[Flex]

Section 34 cases end.
By JADA LOUTOO (NEWSDAY).

FIVE years after 23 persons and four companies sought freedom from prosecution under the controversial and now repealed Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, all the applications were yesterday officially withdrawn bringing to an end one of the most controversial court cases in local history.

Justice Mira Dean-Armorer yesterday cleaned house as she granted permission for the applications to be withdrawn and made no orders for costs which was agreed to by the attorney for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“These matters were forgotten,” the judge said as she went through the list of applicants.

Those whose applications were withdrawn were: Russell Huggins, Renee Pierre, Anderson and Sherwin Meharris, Amrith Maharaj, Aman Harripersad, Collin Catlyn, Oswald Catlyn, Ishwar Galbaransingh, Northern Construction Ltd, Carlos John, Ameer Edoo, Steve Ferguson, Brian Kuei Tung, Barbara Gomes, John Henry Smith, Brent Alvarez, Carlton Roop, Dane Lewis, Montgomery Diaz, Maritime Life Caribbean, Sadiq Baksh, Fidelity Finance and Leasing Co Ltd, Basdeo and Oma Panday, Maritime General and Krishna Persad versus George Nicholas.

Dean-Armorer also had listed before her several constitutional claims in addition to the Section 34 applications but she heard the constitutional matters first and these were dismissed by her in April 2013.

Ferguson, Edoo, Maritime Life (Caribbean), Maritime General Insurance and Fidelity Finance filed constitutional motions and their cases were used as a test case that, if it succeeded, would have paved the way for the other accused to also have their matters dismissed.

However, Dean-Armorer ruled against them by dismissing all eight grounds argued in the lawsuits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

They then petitioned the Privy Council and in January of last year but the London-based court cleared the way for the Piarco Airport fraud accused to go on to trial.

The London Law Lords said the repeal of Section 34 by Parliament on September 14, 2012, simply altered the general law by restoring it to what it had been before the controversial section was proclaimed.

Ferguson and Edoo had argued they had a legitimate expectation of being freed from prosecution under Section 34 and its repeal on September 14, 2012 was unconstitutional and in violation of the basic principles of law.