Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Football supporter on September 12, 2012, 08:29:28 AM
-
Just heard the press release from Roger Gaspard. It lays out all of the key dates in the process that brought into law the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.
It is either very coincidental or an extreme lack of professionalism on the part of the government that this act became law when it did. The act received assent awaiting proclomation on 16th December 2011 and the Attorney General ruled againt appealing the refusal of extradition of those involved in Piarco 1 & 2 on 19th December 2011.
Now, surely if you are the A.G., you would be intimately aware of all consequences of such an act, particularly Section 34? Therefore, if you intend to rule on a case 3 days later, it is clear that the implications of that ruling in relation to section 34 would be known.
To add to the concern over Section 34, the Prime Minister, being herself a lawyer, and a silk at that, would be expected to be fully aware of the connotations of Section 34 and the implications regarding the decision not to appeal the Piarco decision.
Worse still, the DPP only became aware that this act came into law by reading about it in the papers! He was under the belief that the only way the act was to be approved was if certain provisions were added. That too was the belief of the opposition, who's support was required to get the bill passed into law.
So, the nations safeguards, the opposition and the DPP, were bypassed in order to enact this law.
Whether or not there were outside influences in this matter, while being a concern, the first issue is how can the government pass into law a bill that has not followed the correct process?
No one else can be blamed other than the Prime Minister. The only way she can save herself is to deflect attention onto the A.G. and his decision not to appeal the extradition decision. Even then, the fact remains that this government did not follow due process and circumvented the checks and balances put in place to protect the citizens from unjust laws.
-
ley all a dem hush dey ass "Kamla is Boss" mi eh hear dey want she to resign for not pursuing manning and his personal temple he buuilt with state funds... Kamla is boss ley dey tek dat and cool it..
war
-
ley all a dem hush dey ass "Kamla is Boss" mi eh hear dey want she to resign for not pursuing manning and his personal temple he buuilt with state funds... Kamla is boss ley dey tek dat and cool it..
war
I see that you playing STUPID again and yuh winning.
-
ley all a dem hush dey ass "Kamla is Boss" mi eh hear dey want she to resign for not pursuing manning and his personal temple he buuilt with state funds... Kamla is boss ley dey tek dat and cool it..
war
:rotfl:
-
Nothing but the Truth... (Section 34 Cont'd)
Very rarely do we get such a clear view behind the scenes at the inner workings of party politics when in government, but it seems that what many have been referring to as curry duck and scotch politics may have have erupted prematurely over bubbly beverages in Tobago where it hit a snag.
Make no mistake, this whole Section 34 fiasco was not just a cluster-screw-up of epic proportions nor 'novel-esque' fiction brought to life, but a real tale of seedy conspiracy involving men of ill repute who, besides having multiples of matters before local courts for bid rigging and corruption are also wanted internationally to answer questions relating to money laundering and connections with at least one of the biggest drug cartels in the world.
How this comes to be associated with Ministers of government and an alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice using the nation's legislature and some of the highest Offices in the land is destined to make for some gripping reading and I daresay we are in for quite a ride before we get to the back of this book.
Listening to the Chief Justice in his address at the ceremonial opening of the new law term debunk the notion that the Act in question was either intended to or was functionally capable of being proclaimed and implemented piece-meal or before time saw every obstructionist misdirecting defense put forward by all of the government's hired guns fall flat and one is left wondering, who is attending to this damage control?
Did the Sports Minister for example know that much of what he was saying at that time was a lie? Does he know that now?
To hear the remonstrations of His Excellency the President of the Republic in his address at the same event one is tempted to ask 'M'lud, did you not think to summon these same fortitudes when beseeched to act on Independence Day?'
Caught in arguably the most ignoble of pursuits and instead of simply coming straight with the people they swore to serve impartially and fair, the AG and crew seem to have opted instead for accelerating out of the skid by adding arrogance and bluster to the already swirling mass of conjecture that has many of the citizens of this country spitting mad.
Thinking us jackasses the way dumb farm animals are jackasses, the Attorney General straddled the nation's Parliament on Wednesday and went off on a righteous misdirecting tirade seemingly bent on putting the whole Section 34 matter if not at the feet of the opposition then at least on the entire Parliament itself in an attempt to make the matter go away, but by the time he and the other equally animated contributors from that side were finished, not only did they fail miserably so to do, they may very well have succeeded at making the entire matter that much worse.
Who are the 'high' people that made the decision to proclaim the section as alluded to by the Sports Minister?
The worst flogging has to be reserved for the Minster of Justice though, who it appears seems to have put his brain in a blind trust when he left the bench to take up public office.
Did he really expect to throw a cat among the pigeons and that things would proceed quietly? Why aren't his stories adding up?
Who else was in the loop? Was the Prime Minister involved? What exactly did she know and when? The irony in all of this is that the same people who were treated with such scant respect may have the final say, and I daresay should not contemplate judgement or attach consequence until we have learned the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Now that everyone of note has weighed in on the issue it appears that the only thing that we know with absolute clarity and certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point in time is that the people of this country are held in the highest contempt by at least the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice if not the entire United National Congress and their co-conspirators in government.
Posted by Phillip Edward Alexander at 8:07 AM
-
Excellent appraisal of the situation.
The voters should note the key players in this, and it's not just those immediately culpable. Anil Roberts and Jack Warner both stood in defence of this malpractice and did their best to shift the focus back to the PNM. This device is getting to be so tiresome. It happened. Get over it. Two hundred wrongs don't make one right. Their lack of apology, both in the parliament and after the event should illuminate the electorate.
And it was amazing how the Prime Minister could be so vocal through the debate, without having the gumption to take to her feet, and yet be so silent now the magnitude of the storm is upon her. A leader must accept responsibility and take action against those who have misled her cabinet and made them look both foolish and indictable. It's either one or two bad apples, or the whole cabinet. Whichever, someone or everyone must go. But worse, to see a significant number of the population take to the streets, albeit stirred by the opposition, should warrant a response from the PM.
The tactic of pretending things haven't happened cannot prevail forever.
-
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,166414.html
‘Breach of trust’
By Lara Pickford-Gordon Wednesday, September 19 2012
The People’s National Movement (PNM) has asked President George Maxwell Richards to get an explanation from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar for the decision by the Cabinet to have Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 proclaimed early, on August 31.
The PNM said this was “a breach of the trust of the Parliament,” and also called for the appointments of Minister of Justice Herbert Volney and Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to be immediately revoked to avoid further “national distress and international opprobrium on this matter.”
The PNM is also asking the President, in his constitutionally required consultations with the Prime Minister, to raise as a matter of urgency the national community’s outrage.
These requests were contained in a petition of signatures which was delivered to Acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith at President’s House, St Ann’s, at about 3 pm yesterday after a march from Woodford Square, Port-of-Spain.
President Richards left the country yesterday morning for New Zealand where he will deliver the Plenary Address at the Chemeca 2012 conference of the Australian and New Zealand Community of Chemical Engineers and Industrial Chemists which takes place from September 23 to 26. Richards was accompanied by his wife Dr Jean Ramjohn-Richards and will proceed on vacation after the conference.
There was a large turnout for the PNM’s march with scores of persons wearing red jerseys and carrying national flags. Chief Secretary of the PNM-controlled Tobago House of Assembly Orville London travelled to Trinidad to be part of the march. Not all were supporters of PNM and many persons were present to register their dissatisfaction with Government including Movement for Social Justice leader David Abdulah, political analyst Dr Kirk Meighoo and Robert Mayers of the Congress of the People (COP).
Addressing the gathering at the Queen’s Park Savannah (QPS), just after 4 pm, after spending close to an hour meeting with Hamel-Smith, Opposition and PNM Leader Dr Keith Rowley said 25,000 signatures were collected within the 48 hours that the march was announced.
He announced that the President was asked to trace the documents related to Section 34 “backwards to its origin” to make sure rules and regulations were followed for every stage of proceedings right to the drafting of the Cabinet note. Rowley asked for the President to report to the country on his findings.
Rowley suggested that TT’s international image had been “stained” by the Section 34 controversy.
He said, “Understanding this is the communication age, in a matter of seconds, around the world from Australia to Timbuktu from New Zealand to Scotland, the people know that in TT there exists a Government that betrayed the Parliament, that used the Cabinet to allow alleged criminals innocent or guilty to not have their day in court.”
Rowley wrote to the United States, Canadian, United Kingdom, French and Dutch governments as well as the Organisation of American States and Association of Caribbean States and Caricom advising that “even though the Government has done that to the people, the people will have none of this.”
He criticised the silence from members of Cabinet in not giving explanations of the action taken. Rowley observed that Persad-Bissessar was in the Parliament for the amendment to repeal Section 34, last Wednesday, but also “did not have a word to say. All she did was try and get Anil Roberts to speak.”
COP leader and head of the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) Prakash Ramadhar’s silence for two weeks was also criticised.
Rowley was not impressed by Ramadhar’s apology at a press conference yesterday and cited the statement that the LRC was not consulted.
-
Hundreds fill the streets in March against Government
http://www.youtube.com/v/e_tsmWx24Fg
-
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,166411.html
'I HUMBLY APOLOGISE'
By Andre Bagoo Wednesday, September 19 2012
CONGRESS of the People (COP) political leader Prakash Ramadhar yesterday apologised for any part he may have played in the “awful fiasco” of the Section 34 scandal, breaking ranks from coalition partners UNC and TOP on the issue.
Ramadhar, the Legal Affairs Minister, and San Fernando West MP Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, the Public Administration Minister, both issued apologies at a press conference called at the COP’s Flagship House at Broome Street, Port-of-Spain.
Ramadhar said, “Personally I want to apologise to this nation for any part I took to have contributed to this fiasco but things are done in an environment of trust and sometimes that trust may not necessarily have been well-founded.”
At another point, he appeared to apologise a second time, saying he had been assured by unnamed Government officials that the law would not come into effect until years passed.
He said, “I want to take responsibility as far as, personally, I can and to apologise. Really on reflection there was an awful thing (that took place) but I did raise the issue and on the basis that the coming into force of the Act would not have come (until) an extended period (lapsed) we voted on it, all of us. But I am not trying to absolve myself.”
Seepersad-Bachan said, “We apologise for what has happened.”
Ramadhar said he has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar on the issue within the next 48 hours.
Thus far, the only other MP to apologise for the fiasco is Independent Senator Helen Drayton. The UNC and COP member Anil Roberts declined to apologise in Parliament debates last week.
The apologies came less than a week after the House of Representatives and Senate passed legislation to repeal Section 34 retroactively in an attempt to contain the legal fallout from its early proclamation-approved by Cabinet-on August 31. That early proclamation opened the door to two persons linked to the UNC possibly being discharged and given “not guilty” verdicts by a judge.
The old version of Section 34 introduced a statutory limit (seven to ten years) on criminal prosecutions dating from the start of proceedings, while the inserted version started time at the date of the crime. The new version of the section was tabled by Minister of Justice Herbert Volney in the Senate on November 29, 2011 after the House of Representatives approved the original version on November 18, 2011.
Ramadhar said the controversial “new” version of Section 34 was never placed before the Cabinet sub-committee on legal matters – the Legislative Review Committee, which he chairs.
However, he admitted that after the section was inserted into the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act in the Senate on November 29, 2011, he became aware of it, observing that the section was “fundamentally different.”
He raised concerns and was assured that the legislation would not be proclaimed, thus allowing the passage of time in which indictments of pending matters could be brought.
He did not name the specific ministers who gave him assurances. But asked if he could trust and work with Volney and Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Ramadhar said, “We will have to wait and see how that goes.”
At the same time, Ramadhar and Seepersad-Bachan suggested that the COP MPs did not appreciate the impact the section would have on specific cases. “Many did not appreciate the true gravity of this,” she said. She said without consultation on legislation, its true impact is hard to foresee.
Ramadhar said the Cabinet deliberated on a note brought by Volney in relation to the law to implement the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act last month, on August 9. It was this note that contained the controversial early proclamation of Section 34.
However, Ramadhar, when pressed by reporters, refused to detail Cabinet’s thought process in approving Volney’s note which recommended the proclamation of Section 34 on August 31.
“I will not be able to answer without breaching Cabinet responsibility,” he said.
Asked if the coalition has been damaged by the scandal, Ramadhar said, “I think all of Trinidad and Tobago has been damaged by this fiasco.” At the same time he criticised the Opposition PNM for yesterday staging a march on the issue, stating it was not in the best interest of the country.
“I wonder what benefit to the nation comes from that,” Ramadhar said.
-
Warner said there were only 3,000 people on the march and this was ascertained from aerial photos. The police said between 12,000 - 15,000. It's come to something when you feel inclined to believe the police.
-
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PM_BREAKS_SILENCE-170446696.html
PM BREAKS SILENCE
Section 34 Fiasco Kamala: I chose to remain silent on the issue...because a premature commentary on the matter before all information became available to me would have been injudicious
By Anna Ramdassanna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Sep 20, 2012 at 12:01 AM ECT
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar will finally be breaking her silence today after almost two weeks of public outrage over the early proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.
Persad-Bissessar yesterday walked around Laventille and environs where she met and encouraged residents to keep the peace.
Almost three hours later after the walk, when pressed by the media on the Section 34 issue, Persad-Bissessar responded: "I will be making a statement tomorrow after Cabinet."
Later, a release was issued by the Office of the Prime Minister stating that the Prime Minister will be issuing a full statement on the matter today after Cabinet is concluded.
The Prime Minister stated in the release:
"Soon after Section 34 was proclaimed, the Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concerns to the Attorney General regarding the implications and consequences of the event. The Attorney General 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 were not consistent with Government policy.
"In the circumstances, I gave instructions for the Parliament to be convened immediately to consider a Bill to repeal Section 34. I also summoned the Cabinet to an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. The Government therefore moved swiftly to successfully reverse the ill-effects and unintended consequences of this section.
"Apart from taking immediate and necessary action to repeal Section 34, I chose to remain silent on the issue of its early proclamation because a premature commentary on the matter before all information became available to me would have been injudicious. Since then I have been personally enquiring into the circumstances that created the situation before us today and will be issuing a full statement on the matter tomorrow, Thursday, September 20 after Cabinet is concluded."
Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, 2011 was proclaimed by the President on August 30, thereby giving accused persons a legal avenue to apply to a judge to throw out a case if more than ten years had passed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial had not yet started.
On the heels of the proclamation, businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, as well as other accused, applied to the High Court under Section 34 for their freedom.
The UNC financiers are accused of bid-rigging and conspiracy to defraud the Government of Trinidad and Tobago during the period March 1, 1997 to December 21, 2000, in the construction of the Piarco International Airport Terminal.
Last Tuesday the Prime Minister held an emergency Cabinet meeting and instructed that Parliament be reconvened to repeal Section 34.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House of Representatives and Senate met respectively and Section 34 was repealed.
Early last Friday morning, the President signed the Proclamation Order repealing Section 34 which he had proclaimed just two weeks ago on August 30.
The furore continued, however, with Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley calling on citizens to march against the Government's handling of Section 34.
The Opposition argued that it had supported the Act because assurances were given that it would not be proclaimed until the legal infrastructure was put into place.
On Tuesday, Rowley led a march from the Red House to President's House where he presented a petition bearing 25,000 signatures to acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith which called on the Prime Minister to explain the section 34 fiasco and also revoke the appointments of Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Justice Minister Herbert Volney.
On the same day that Rowley and thousands marched, Congress of the People (COP) political leader Prakash Ramadhar publicly apologised for his part in the Section 34 fiasco.
Ramadhar urged his own Government of which he is a partner, to come forward and explain the details that led to the passing of the contentious section.
Not only did the DPP take issue with the proclamation of Section 34 but the Criminal Bar Association and Law Association also stated that they were not consulted on this particular section.
Chief Justice Ivor Archie also spoke out on the issue at the opening of the 2012/13 law term, saying the implementation of any legislative policy to eliminate preliminary enquiries could not realistically have taken place before the first quarter of 2013.
Today, the country will hear from the Prime Minister herself why her Cabinet took the decision to proclaim Section 34 and whether anyone will be held accountable.
-
hhhhhmmmm this is a tough one.....who to believe??......de police or de fella who has an economy with the truth??.....how ah solving this one boy??..... ::) ::)
-
So what time HRH KPB speakin?
-
hhhhhmmmm this is a tough one.....who to believe??......de police or de fella who has an economy with the truth??.....how ah solving this one boy??..... ::) ::)
Warner's really good a counting tickets so I'm going with him.
-
hhhhhmmmm this is a tough one.....who to believe??......de police or de fella who has an economy with the truth??.....how ah solving this one boy??..... ::) ::)
Warner's really good a counting tickets so I'm going with him.
:rotfl:
-
Volney gone, Anand the teflon man survives another day
-
Policy of Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3JgWmQHcE&feature=related
-
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/298451_10151065202830994_1957174952_n.jpg)
-
:rotfl:
-
I dunno how this woman could premise the firing of Volney on his "failure to advise Parliament"... but leave Anand untouched, when as AG his role is to advise the Government on legal action/ramifications. I want to see if the populace in TnT, particularly the legal and journalistic fraternities go let this one slide. People deride Romney and say all kinda thing about the march... the march didn't have to be no tidal wave, just another drop in the bucket, another note in a steady drumbeat to get Kamla feet moving.
-
snake boy goes and goat buller stays :cursing: nonsense anand wasn't legal counsel for Ish at ah point.......she for real.......steups........coco in d sun, have to be dat members of she gov't have she under manners...nah
-
Excellent appraisal of the situation.
The voters should note the key players in this, and it's not just those immediately culpable. Anil Roberts and Jack Warner both stood in defence of this malpractice and did their best to shift the focus back to the PNM. This device is getting to be so tiresome. It happened. Get over it. Two hundred wrongs don't make one right. Their lack of apology, both in the parliament and after the event should illuminate the electorate.
And it was amazing how the Prime Minister could be so vocal through the debate, without having the gumption to take to her feet, and yet be so silent now the magnitude of the storm is upon her. A leader must accept responsibility and take action against those who have misled her cabinet and made them look both foolish and indictable. It's either one or two bad apples, or the whole cabinet. Whichever, someone or everyone must go. But worse, to see a significant number of the population take to the streets, albeit stirred by the opposition, should warrant a response from the PM.
The tactic of pretending things haven't happened cannot prevail forever.
Well I guess the concern was addressed.
I for one REALLLLLLYYYYY glad they buss Volney's throat....too stupid and arrogant.
-
Excellent appraisal of the situation.
The voters should note the key players in this, and it's not just those immediately culpable. Anil Roberts and Jack Warner both stood in defence of this malpractice and did their best to shift the focus back to the PNM. This device is getting to be so tiresome. It happened. Get over it. Two hundred wrongs don't make one right. Their lack of apology, both in the parliament and after the event should illuminate the electorate.
And it was amazing how the Prime Minister could be so vocal through the debate, without having the gumption to take to her feet, and yet be so silent now the magnitude of the storm is upon her. A leader must accept responsibility and take action against those who have misled her cabinet and made them look both foolish and indictable. It's either one or two bad apples, or the whole cabinet. Whichever, someone or everyone must go. But worse, to see a significant number of the population take to the streets, albeit stirred by the opposition, should warrant a response from the PM.
The tactic of pretending things haven't happened cannot prevail forever.
Well I guess the concern was addressed.
I for one REALLLLLLYYYYY glad they buss Volney's throat....too stupid and arrogant.
ENTTTTTTTTTTTT take yuh snake and go
-
At least Anand have to go too as well. If not, then Kams need to resign and call fresh elections....
-
At least Anand have to go too as well. If not, then Kams need to resign and call fresh elections....
Doh hold yuh breath and wait for that
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/zVbzIdDaIN0
-
SECTION 34 TIMELINE
(some parts have been copied and pasted from the online news becaue I am not a legal luminary and don't want to make incorrect edits)
_________________________
1995-2001: Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh allegedly defraud the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago of over $1 billion in relation to construction contracts in the new Piarco Airport Project.
March 2011: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) senior counsel Roger Gaspard consulted about theAdministration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 . DPP not asked comment on the significance of section 34(2) and 34(3). At this time section 34 or Schedule 6 as now contained in the Act were not in the draft bill sent by the Minister of Justice.
6th May 2011: Director of Public Prosecutions senior counsel Roger Gaspard comments on the act
7th Nov 2011: Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh's decision to quash the extradition of Steve Fergusson and Ishwar Galbaransingh on corruption charges. (This simple means that the court deems thhat TT is the best place to try both men) THE BILL IS LAID 4 DAYS LATER.
11th November 2011: the Bill is introduced into the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago
29th November 2011: Clause 34 is changed on a motion in the Senate by the Hon. Minister of Justice. The effect of that change was to prevent the prosecution of offences not covered by Schedule 6 where the conduct alleged occurred more than ten (10) years ago. (Schedule 6 excludes white-collar crimes such as sedition, terrorism, piracy, money laundering or offences under the Larceny and Forgery Acts). This has serious international implications. Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh COULD HAVE CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 34 SINCE THE TEN YEAR PERIOD HAS PASSED.
DPP is not consulted about this change to clause 34 of the Bill.
The implications of Section 34 appear to have slipped past Parliamentarians.
16th December 2011: received the assent of the President on the 16th of December 2011. Instructively, on the 19th of December 2011 the Attorney General announced his decision not to appeal the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Boodoosingh, that the decision to return Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to the United States of America, was unjust and oppressive. Doubtless, when he announced that decision, the Attorney General must have had in mind the provisions of section 34.
24th July, 2012: DPP attends a meeting held by the Judiciary and Justice Sector Committee at the Chief Justice’s Conference Room at the Hall of Justice on One of the items on the agenda was the Implementation Process for the Regime under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.The effect and import of section 34 of the Act are raised. This Minister of Justice declares that Cabinet had already made a decision.
31st August 2012: Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 comes into effect.
Under this act section 34(2) and 34(3) are of such effect that any matter involving offences committed over ten (10) years ago cannot now be tried unless they are excepted by Schedule 6 of the Act. However, Schedule 6 does not apply to the captioned matters. REMEMBER: (Schedule 6 excludes white-collar crimes such as sedition, terrorism, piracy, money laundering or offences under the Larceny and Forgery Acts). Section 34 allows those charged under the act to apply for the charges to be dropped if they allegedly committed offences more than ten years previously.
10th September 2012: Businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson file applications on Monday to be freed of charges relating to corruption charges in the Piarco Airport project.
Section 34 is not yet repealed.
DPP write AG Anand Ramlogan on the matter
11th September 2012: DPP learning of the proclamation Section 34 in the press, writes Attorney General Anand Ramlogan suggesting that the Act be repealed immediately with retroactive effect.
AG cites reasons not to repeal section 34
12th September 2012: Businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson can be freed of corruption charges says Dana Seetahal since the application was filed (to drop all charges against them) while section 34 was in force and they are entitled to the benefit of the act.
Seetahal states that when repealing the section 34, there should be provision so that the law has retroactive effect to a specific date ( so the offenders have no room for litigation)
AG declares section 34 be removed; it cannot stand on its own “ without absurdity”
DPP declares that the original clause he saw has been changed.
DPP states that the original document he viewed did not indicate a date range when offences were committed as a basis for discharge
DPP declares no parallel to Sections (20 and (3) in the entire Commonwealth
Parliament convenes for the purpose of repealing the Act.
SOURCES
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-12/ish-steve-can-still-go-free%E2%80%94seetahal
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Breaking-News---Gaspard-Breaks-Silence-169487316.html
Thing is Anand Ramlogan and Kamla lying no arse...4 days after refusing to appeal Boodoosingh's decision not to extradite Anand and dem laid the act!
steups wussesss government EVER in T&T
-
Thousands 'vote' to remove AG, Jack during Section 34 march
By Joel Julien (Express).
THE AYES HAVE IT
THOUSANDS of citizens yesterday took to the streets of the capital city, calling for Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and National Security Minister Jack Warner to hit the road.
The march, which began at Woodford Square, Port of Spain, around 1.20 p.m. yesterday, lasted just over two hours and ended with a public meeting on the Brian Lara Promenade.
At the promenade, a vote was held parliamentary-style where the crowd was asked whether Warner and Ramlogan should be fired.
The "ayes" had it.
A senior police officer at the march estimated the crowd to be around 25,000.
Several leaders who addressed the public meeting after the march estimated the crowd to be as much as 40,000.
Warner would however say the size of the crowd was 500, Ancel Roget, president general of the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (OWTU), said yesterday.
At noon yesterday, a coalition of political parties, among them the People's National Movement (PNM), led by Dr Keith Rowley; Movement for Social Justice (MSJ), led by David Abdulah; and the Democratic National Assembly (DNA), led by Dr Kirk Meighoo, trade unions and civic groups gathered at Woodford Square, calling for Ramlogan and Warner to be fired.
When the march reached in front of the Attorney General's office at Cabildo Chambers on St Vincent Street, the crowd stopped.
"Anand have to go right now!" they chanted as armed officers of the Guard and Emergency Branch blocked the entrance.
During the march, Warner was labelled as a "runaway horse".
The march took place under surveillance of a National Security Ministry helicopter which flew overhead.
Members of the Guard and Emergency Branch, known as the riot squad, Mounted Branch officers and other uniformed and plain-clothes police were also present.
Three photographers and two cameramen from the police, who were in plain clothes, also took footage of the march.
The march was a continuation of the PNM's initial mobilisation last month against the Section 34 fiasco.
On September 18, Rowley led a march to the President's House to deliver a letter to demand a written explanation from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar as to why the controversial Section 34 was prematurely selected to become law.
Meighoo estimated that "this march was much larger than the last one".
"I have served in the Parliament for 20-odd years. In this country, we had PNM governments, we had a NAR (National Alliance for Reconstruction) government, we had a UNC (United National Congress) government under Basdeo Panday, and we had differences with those governments; nobody more than the unions on this (head) table," Rowley said.
"They had issues with the government, but every occasion, it was a difference of opinion over policies and programmes, and that is okay," he said.
"But what has happened under the Kamla Persad-Bissessar Government never happened under any other government," Rowley said, in reference to the Section 34 debacle.
"You walked today because you saw a threat to democracy and an abuse by office-holders. For the first time, and the only time known to me, a Cabinet decided to use its authority of Cabinet to undermine the rule of law in the country to create a loophole for financiers of the party to get away," Rowley said, referring to Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.
Abdulah was the last of the leaders to address the meeting.
Abdulah said although a motion of censure against Ramlogan was defeated in the Lower House, he wanted to conduct a similar vote on the promenade.
"Is Anand Ramlogan culpable in the Section 34 fiasco? All those in favour, say 'aye' ," Abdulah said.
"Aye!" the crowd said in response.
"All those against?" Abdulah said.
There was no response.
"The ayes have it," he said to loud applause.
Abdulah then conducted a similar vote for Warner, who he said has abused his power as National Security minister.
"So I put it to you now; notice of censure to remove Jack Warner as minister of National Security for his abuse of executive power. All those in favour, say 'aye'."
"Aye!" the crowd responded.
"Any against?" Abdulah said.
"No!" the crowd said.
"They ayes have it," Abdulah said.
Roget called on citizens to prepare themselves for the next move if Ramlogan and Warner are not fired.
Roget said the country may have to be shut down in order to save it.
Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj said the entire Cabinet is guilty in relation to the Section 34 fiasco.
Lawrence Maharaj said when the People's Partnership won elections, he was interviewed by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar for the office of attorney general.
Lawrence Maharaj said Persad-Bissessar asked him if he would raise alarms if issues of corruption were present in the Government.
Ramlogan was named Attorney General.
Ramesh said several Cabinet members have become millionaires and billionaires since entering the Government.
"Our country is in crisis; they have brought our country to its knees. They have, in effect, made us try to forget our moral values," he said.
"Some of them, in the short space of time, I would not call names today, but some of them, they remain nameless for the time being, some of them are millionaires already, some are even billionaires," Lawrence Maharaj said.
Lawrence Maharaj said he has information that a Cabinet minister tried to buy a house for $38 million in cash.
He said another Cabinet member has bought over 13 properties since being named a minister.
The properties are listed under a third-party's name, he said.
-
Jack Warner slams Pres Max.
By SHASTRI BOODAN (Guardian).
‘He’s a political puppet of the PNM’
President Max Richards is nothing more than a political puppet of the PNM says Minister of National Security and Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner. Speaking in his capacity as the UNC chairman, Warner told reporters following his Christmas treat throughout his constituency yesterday that Richards was leaving a shameful legacy.
Warner was referring to the President’s call on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to provide answers on Section 34. He said, “George Maxwell Richards will forever be remembered as the man who politicised the distinguished office of the presidency and compromised the traditional independent role of the position.”
Warner said Richards was extremely silent during the reign of the last PNM regime in issues surrounding the Integrity Commission. He said Richards remained quiet while being ill-treated by former prime minister Patrick Manning who built a palace next to the “presidential hut.” The minister even knocked Richards for the amount of time he spends vacationing outside of T&T.
Warner said, “In his last remaining days as President, His Excellency may feel emboldened to use his office to interfere in the politics of this nation but he may have misjudged the ire of critics and the sensitivity of the population. “The mask of President Richards has fallen and the entire nation can now see him for who he has always been—a political puppet of the former administration, placed there to bolster the political fortunes of the People’s National Movement.”
Warner said His Excellency remained respectfully quiet during that turbulent period during Manning’s reign. But the moment the government changed, he pointed out, Richards found a voice to make statements on all manner of things. “Now, against all advice, legal and moral, he questions a proclamation which all members of the Parliament, including independent senators signed and to which he himself gave authority.
“The President today, in other words, chooses to question the Government on a proclamation which he earlier assented to.” Warner said, “History will record the indignity he brought to the presidency and he will be remembered as the political President, a man who showed how unqualified he has been for the post.
“We might have forgiven him for several errors for which he became well known, including the fiasco of the Integrity Commission appointments, we might even have chosen to forget his refusal to return from vacation and fix the national shame for which he was responsible, but how can anyone ever forgive and forget this naked interference in the politics and governance of our country by our President?”
Warner distributed more than 7,000 toys at seven venues in his constituency. The programme involved five Santa Claus and helicopters landed at five venues.
-
Nice.
-
These fellas grossly disrespectful boy waysah. A lil broughtupcy when dealing with the Prezy nah.
-
No wonder our football was going nowhere fast.
-
dat man will order police to shoot people jus now.........wait
-
"If I could spit on yuh i would, you are garbage" "Ask yuh mudder"
-
"If I could spit on yuh i would, you are garbage" "Ask yuh mudder"
we like it so
-
I dunno how this woman could premise the firing of Volney on his "failure to advise Parliament"... but leave Anand untouched, when as AG his role is to advise the Government on legal action/ramifications. I want to see if the populace in TnT, particularly the legal and journalistic fraternities go let this one slide. People deride Romney and say all kinda thing about the march... the march didn't have to be no tidal wave, just another drop in the bucket, another note in a steady drumbeat to get Kamla feet moving.
Here is the clearest explanation I have heard of why Anand can remain untouched from lawyer Robin Montano. It makes sense, take a listen!
First Up: Attorney At Law Robin Montano Explains Section 34.
http://www.youtube.com/v/wffbk927bt8
-
http://guardian.co.tt/news/2012-12-22/volneycrazy-duet-targetting-2013-dimanche-gras-stage
Former Justice Minister Herbert Volney and calypsonian Crazy (Edwin Ayoung) have teamed up on the eccentric bard’s new song, The Fall Guy, based on the Section 34 controversy. The calypso will be launched at street parang fiesta, entitled Section 34, at 7 pm today, outside Volney’s Mt Lambert constituency office.
Volney is hoping the composition will take Crazy all the way to the Calypso Monarch finals. “I have a part in the tune,” he said, “In fact, we collaborated. He did the lyrics and I just spoke in the tune. His chorus is ‘I proclaim it, Aye Aye, I proclaim it.’ “The theme of the calypso is that I have nothing to be ashamed of over Section 34, its enactment and its proclamation. Who vex, ‘lorse’. That is exactly how I feel, of course,” said Volney.
The former minister has been working on today’s event for the past few weeks. Since his dismissal in September, he said, he has been busy in his constituency office. “Well, I am a full Member of Parliament. My time is currently being spent on the ground in my constituency like never before, and I am seeing first-hand what it is like to be a true Member of Parliament,” he said.
With the loss of his monthly income as a member of the cabinet, Volney said an MP’s salary cannot really sustain his livelihood. Luckily for him, he receives a monthly allowance from his judicial pension plan after serving as a judge for 16 years, to add to the $15,000 salary he is paid as MP for St Joseph.
Volney was dismissed by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar for allegedly misleading the Parliament into believing that all consultations on the controversial Section 34 of the Adminstration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act had been completed before it was proclaimed. When asked in an interview yesterday if his MP’s salary was sufficient to support his needs, he said: “No! It is not, but fortunately I have a judge’s pension.
I earned my judge’s pension after working for 16 and a half years, and I don't maintain an affluent lifestyle. I live very humbly and I am able to get by.” Although he is not ashamed, Volney said he was hard-hit by his dismissal, as the Legal Profession Act 1986 prohibits a former permanent judge from practising for ten years after retirement.
However, he boasted that he is a resourceful man and has other options. “I am unemployable as an attorney but I can give legal advice. As far as I know, I can be legal adviser or legal consultant. I am still a lawyer by training but at this time I am fully employed in the service of the people of my St Joseph constituency. I could leave the country, but I don't think I can leave at this age when I have so much to offer.
“I am a very resourceful man and I am useful, not just locally. I offer services for criminal-justice transformation and creating strategic alliances, and it is available, but of course, at a price.” But as Volney now calls on Persad-Bissessar to reinstate him to his ministerial portfolio, he said the person who erred in the passing of Section 34 was Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, who he said was guilty of malfeasance.
Volney said disciplinary action should be taken against Gaspard, starting with his being censured in Parliament.
“Any inaction you see, when you have a duty to act, and you don't, that to me is malfeasance. It is in that context that word is used, especially when you have a constitutional duty to safeguard public interest prosecutions, and in this particular case he knew the Piarco Airport public-interest prosecution would have been in jeopardy, unknown to me and the Attorney General.
“Rather than raise the red flag before it was late, he kept silent and opened his mouth after actions were filed or it was proclaimed. “I think first he should be censured in Parliament and then I’ll think of it, as a Member of Parliament, and then see how it could be done constitutionally,” said Volney.
-
Here is the clearest explanation I have heard of why Anand can remain untouched from lawyer Robin Montano. It makes sense, take a listen!
First Up: Attorney At Law Robin Montano Explains Section 34.
http://www.youtube.com/v/wffbk927bt8
This is de same Robin Montano (http://www.ttparliament.org/members.php?mid=26&pid=6&id=RMO86), right? Right.
Montano is a UNC hack... and while what he says makes sense, I don't accept for one minute that he is presenting all the facts as they occurred. For one, he presents a very big caveat "IF the Prime Minister was telling the truth...". Volney claimed the DPP and CJ signed off ACCORDING to Kamla. I haven't heard Volney's side... did he really say that? IF he did, did he get the consent from the DPP and CJ? It clearly wasn't in writing... did he get it verbally?
Aside from that... vis-a-vis Ramlogan's role. Yes, the PM delegated certain responsibilities to Volney, but what role did Anand play in all of this? Did he review the legislation? Did he give any assurances to the PM? And what of Kamla... why did she delegate such an important function to this contrived "Minister of Justice" portfolio, rather than having the government's lawyer advise on proposed legislation?
Montano on shit... he also saying that if the march is about "poor governance" then bring evidence. Seriously? He need evidence of poor governance from this gov't beyond what is already out there? And let's NOT even talk about his claim that the print media is "anti-government"... that is irresponsible talk from a man of his standing.
-
this is a very clear breakdown of section 34. But to me, it is still a smokescreen to protect those who are responsible.
First, if Mr Volney had the sole responsibility for invoking section 34, and there is no logical reason for it other than to benefit people who he socialises with, then sacking him is not enough. I'm sure Bakes can help here, but isn't this perverting the course of justice? Isn't there various laws being broken by Volney? Similar to insider trading, Volney used his position to benefit his friends? This is not a parking ticket. Its an international incident which has possibly allowed those involved in 2 of the biggest financial criminal cases in T&T history to escape justice.
If, as the PM states, it was solely due to Mr Volney, why has he not been charged by the DPP?
Second, government is a collective. The whole point of putting checks and balances in place is to spot errors and ensure that rogue or corrupt Ministers do not take advantage of their powers for their personal means. So, Volney says this law is good, and lies about its approval from the DPP and the chief justice. So, nobody is checking? None of the civil servants spot this? There's no checklist with signatures? The cabinet is not supposed to be a rubber stamp, it's supposed to be a failsafe. If you're putting your name to something, wouldn't you read it first? Ask questions like: Why do we need to pass section 34 at this time as it does nothing to help this law being created any faster. Why only section 34 and none of the other sections?
Third. The PM appointed Volney. She lives and dies by her decisions. If Volney was a person of poor character, and she gave him a newly created ministry with absolute powers, isn't she responsible? So, shouldn't she resign? If you appointed a man to run a childrens home who turned out to be a paedophile, you would resign. She appointed a man to a newly created ministry to oversee justice and he plotted and planned and manipulated the parliamentary system and committed a possible illegal act. You put him there love, so you are responsible.
Bakes, I would be interested in your view regarding Volney and any laws that have been broken.
-
so according to Montano the PM should be the one to go! The report went to the Cabinet, the head of the cabinet is the PM..either she goes or the entire cabinet goes..and even if the report was false from Volney and was sent to the Cabinet was not Ramlogan a part of the Cabinet? Should he not ahve said: "Hold up snake man," "yuh mad or wha? If we do dat then Ish and dem go walk and we go get blamed for doing this shit."
Did not happen, Montano come with ah half ass excuse.
-
I don't believe Volney did anything illegal. Section 34, generally speaking IS good law... in fact I am surprised that this isn't already on the books in TnT. Every mature, democratic legal system has a similar "speedy trial" provision on the books. However, two things about the law that drew scrutiny was the timing of it, it seemed arbitrarily geared towards helping the financiers... and that the DPP and CJ came out and said that they did not give consent to the version of the law that was eventually passed and repealed.
So if anything, Volney is guilty of doctoring the language after the DPP/CJ gave their agreement to one version (or he never sought their agreement at all) and subsequently lied and said they were in agreement with it. It depends on what he actually told the PM... for all we know he never told her that they gave their consent. All we have is Kamla's word that he told her X, Y and Z.
Even if she's telling the truth... lying itself is not a crime. Now if he were here in the US I can tell you that that's something for which he easily could lose his license... but is TnT we talking about where everybody is friend. Note that no one has raised the issue of professional sanction against him, either because there is no case against him (PM lying), or because there's no impetus to see him sanctioned.
-
I don't believe Volney did anything illegal. Section 34, generally speaking IS good law... in fact I am surprised that this isn't already on the books in TnT. Every mature, democratic legal system has a similar "speedy trial" provision on the books. However, two things about the law that drew scrutiny was the timing of it, it seemed arbitrarily geared towards helping the financiers... and that the DPP and CJ came out and said that they did not give consent to the version of the law that was eventually passed and repealed.
So if anything, Volney is guilty of doctoring the language after the DPP/CJ gave their agreement to one version (or he never sought their agreement at all) and subsequently lied and said they were in agreement with it. It depends on what he actually told the PM... for all we know he never told her that they gave their consent. All we have is Kamla's word that he told her X, Y and Z.
Even if she's telling the truth... lying itself is not a crime. Now if he were here in the US I can tell you that that's something for which he easily could lose his license... but is TnT we talking about where everybody is friend. Note that no one has raised the issue of professional sanction against him, either because there is no case against him (PM lying), or because there's no impetus to see him sanctioned.
Maybe its because he cannot practice law for 10 years after stepping down as a judge?
-
"If I could spit on yuh i would, you are garbage" "Ask yuh mudder"
we like it so
LUV NOT LIKE
-
Maybe its because he cannot practice law for 10 years after stepping down as a judge?
Nah they could still take action against him... dai'z like saying yuh cyah give ah man jail time if he already in jail. Just add it on.
-
Maybe its because he cannot practice law for 10 years after stepping down as a judge?
Nah they could still take action against him... dai'z like saying yuh cyah give ah man jail time if he already in jail. Just add it on.
No, I mean maybe that's why they haven't tried to take away his licence to practice. Like a man loses his legs then you take away his shoes!
But I still don't understand why a man can set out to trick a government into activating a law that has the only effect of setting free alleged criminals isn't illegal in some way. I mean if he opened the door of a jail and let a man escape, that's an offence, so why isn't this? If you lie to a court, it's an offence, but lying to the President, D.P.P., Attorney General, P.M., cabinet and both houses of the parliament isn't. Failing to declare a bank account with $10,000 is a matter for the integrity commission, yet section 34 isn't. Doesn't make sense to me!
Oh, and I definitely agree its a good law, as did both houses unanimously, but the implementation of section 34 serves no purpose without the other sections, except, of course, to allow certain people to walk free!
-
No, I mean maybe that's why they haven't tried to take away his licence to practice. Like a man loses his legs then you take away his shoes!
But I still don't understand why a man can set out to trick a government into activating a law that has the only effect of setting free alleged criminals isn't illegal in some way. I mean if he opened the door of a jail and let a man escape, that's an offence, so why isn't this? If you lie to a court, it's an offence, but lying to the President, D.P.P., Attorney General, P.M., cabinet and both houses of the parliament isn't. Failing to declare a bank account with $10,000 is a matter for the integrity commission, yet section 34 isn't. Doesn't make sense to me!
Oh, and I definitely agree its a good law, as did both houses unanimously, but the implementation of section 34 serves no purpose without the other sections, except, of course, to allow certain people to walk free!
There's a difference between lying, lying under oath, and lying under oath about some matter that is material to the proceedings. Only one of them is perjury, and actionable. As for Section 34, it doesn't need any of the additional 'sections' in order to meet it's purpose, each of the sections of the TT code are good standalone laws. The problem with the law as they passed it is that it was poorly written so as to handicap the State (prosecution). For example, a law that says "All Men are Created Equal" is enforceable without any other sections of the criminal code to which it belongs. However, add a few more words to read "but some men are more equal than others" and the entire effect/meaning of the law changes. That is basically what happened with the law, there was no language limiting the right of redress to the defendant, so no matter if he was in hiding for 10 years and they couldn't find him... as long as ten years had passed the state was prohibited from prosecuting him. Every other nation's laws has safeguards that stops the clock for delays NOT caused by the prosecution.
-
No, I mean maybe that's why they haven't tried to take away his licence to practice. Like a man loses his legs then you take away his shoes!
But I still don't understand why a man can set out to trick a government into activating a law that has the only effect of setting free alleged criminals isn't illegal in some way. I mean if he opened the door of a jail and let a man escape, that's an offence, so why isn't this? If you lie to a court, it's an offence, but lying to the President, D.P.P., Attorney General, P.M., cabinet and both houses of the parliament isn't. Failing to declare a bank account with $10,000 is a matter for the integrity commission, yet section 34 isn't. Doesn't make sense to me!
Oh, and I definitely agree its a good law, as did both houses unanimously, but the implementation of section 34 serves no purpose without the other sections, except, of course, to allow certain people to walk free!
There's a difference between lying, lying under oath, and lying under oath about some matter that is material to the proceedings. Only one of them is perjury, and actionable. As for Section 34, it doesn't need any of the additional 'sections' in order to meet it's purpose, each of the sections of the TT code are good standalone laws. The problem with the law as they passed it is that it was poorly written so as to handicap the State (prosecution). For example, a law that says "All Men are Created Equal" is enforceable without any other sections of the criminal code to which it belongs. However, add a few more words to read "but some men are more equal than others" and the entire effect/meaning of the law changes. That is basically what happened with the law, there was no language limiting the right of redress to the defendant, so no matter if he was in hiding for 10 years and they couldn't find him... as long as ten years had passed the state was prohibited from prosecuting him. Every other nation's laws has safeguards that stops the clock for delays NOT caused by the prosecution.
I get that, but the scandal of section 34 is that it was just one part of a much more important law. The bill was passed on the basis that all of the infrastructure was in place,before it was pronounced which would have taken at least two years,and more likely 5 years, in which case section 34 would not have effected the Piarco case because that would have begun by then, therefore the 10 years without charge stipulation would be moot. In order to facilitate the infrastructure process, only (I believe) sections 1,2 & 3 needed to be proclaimed.
Section 34 as a standalone law would never have been passed by parliament, as it required opposition support, and they would never have let Ish & Steve get away.
This is precisely why I asked if Volney had broken any laws, because section 34 specifically benefited certain people awaiting their trials.
-
I get that, but the scandal of section 34 is that it was just one part of a much more important law. The bill was passed on the basis that all of the infrastructure was in place,before it was pronounced which would have taken at least two years,and more likely 5 years, in which case section 34 would not have effected the Piarco case because that would have begun by then, therefore the 10 years without charge stipulation would be moot. In order to facilitate the infrastructure process, only (I believe) sections 1,2 & 3 needed to be proclaimed.
Section 34 as a standalone law would never have been passed by parliament, as it required opposition support, and they would never have let Ish & Steve get away.
This is precisely why I asked if Volney had broken any laws, because section 34 specifically benefited certain people awaiting their trials.
No I think you're misunderstanding the issue. There were no other parts to the "bill", Section 34 IS the Bill. The "section" in Section 34 doesn't refer to a section of the bill, but rather a section of the Criminal code. In other words, the purpose of the use of "section" isn't to denote that this bill is a part of a greater, complete bill... but rather it's used as a tab or space holder, so that you can know where to find this particular law within the criminal code, if that makes sense.
The issue isn't that "infrastructure" as you call it isn't in place... though yes, that's a problem too and the substance of the "lie" charges. The issue is that the intent of the law was changed.
Typically the "clock" I referred to earlier doesn't start until the state charges the individual... and there was no time limit for bringing charges. In other words, you commit a crime in 1970 and the state could still charge you, but once they DO bring charges, they would have 10 years to bring you to trial. Remember they might have enough evidence to charge, but not enough to secure a conviction as the standards for each is different. They need enough evidence to reasonably conclude you committed a crime (probable cause) to charge, but need enough to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. So after they charge they investigate further and gather more evidence, this takes time. The original bill would have given them 10 years to gather that evidence and put you on trial.
The language was tweaked so that instead of saying they had 10 years after they charged you, it now said they had 10 years from the date you allegedly committed the crime. So that 1970 crime? They couldn't even bring charges against you today... at all, forget trial.
See this explanation (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Intent_of_Section_34_changed-169572196.html)by the COP... pay particular attention to number14 and 15.
Now for a bit of housecleaning... that "infrastructure" that they referred to means, does the Office of the DPP have the capability, manpower etc. to investigate criminal offences and ensure they can bring a person to trial within ten years of them committing a crime. Second, does the Judiciary have the resources and logistic wherewithal to ensure that a trial can commence within that timeframe. Both offices needed to sign off on that commitment before presentment to Parliament. They signed off on being able to bring the defendant to trial w/in 10 years of being charged... but the language was changed so that what Volney told Kamla was that they said they could bring the defendant to trial w/in ten years of committing the crime, no matter how long it took for the crime to be discovered, and for the suspect to be charged.
-
All that aside, I am mindfacked by the fact that they think 10 years under any circumstance is a reasonable enough time to bring someone to trial after charging them. In the US and most other common law countries the statutes of limitation vary by crime, and apply to the commission of the crime. For example, in Pennsylvania the statute of limitation for burglary is 5 years; Rape 12 years; Arson 5 years and Murder no time limit. These numbers mean that the state have that much time to charge you counting from the date they claimed the crime was committed.
That is separate from the "speedy trial" provision which doesn't consider the type of crime... no matter what you are charged with, once they decide to charge you they have ONE year from the date of arraignment to bring you to trial... not no ten years, that is madness.
-
Maybe a lot of confusion around section 34 results from the terminology and legalese.
As I understand it, the act that was passed was the Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, 2011, of which there are 35 sections. http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2011-20.pdf
As you said, this is good law, but the controversial element is Section 34 which deals with timescale.
Parliament understood that this paragraph:
whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
a Judge shall, on an application by the accused,
discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty
if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a
date that is ten years or more before the date of the
application.
would be changed to something like : if the accused case has not been heard in court on a
date that is ten years or more after the date of the application.
Obviously, this second paragraph is my paraphrase and may not be exact.
Only sections 1, 2 and 34 were proclaimed on August 31st.
It was only section 34 that was repealed, not sections 1 and 2, which are necessary 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 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.”
There was no apparent legal reason for section 34 to be proclaimed on that day. The "infrastructure" as described above, was considered so important that the government agreed the provision that none of the sections (except 1 and 2) would be proclaimed until this was in place.
Before the Committee Stage of the Senate was concluded discussions took place (behind the Speakers chair) between Senator Al-Rawi and Anand 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.
There is a section 34 timescale, although this is clearly created by a PNM minded person.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/opposition-leader/the-clause-34-timeline/419292051464999
Anyway, although I keep thinking that I've got my head around section 34, I'm still picking up new info. But I am shocked that such a blatant attempt to help people avoid justice could happen in cabinet when it completely ignores the provisions agreed in parliament. So if it isn't a criminal offence, it damn well should be!
-
FS, here is a timeline that is more independent....a bit lengthy but good reading....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/)
-
FS, here is a timeline that is more independent....a bit lengthy but good reading....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/)
Thanks, Brownie, but it says I "do not have permission to read this doc" >:(
-
Part I
Timeline of Events related to Sec 34 of the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill
By Rhoda Bharath, Edmund Nigel Gall and 3 others in The Sentinel (Files) · Edit Doc
The timeline below represents the publicly disclosed events related to the accelerated proclamation of Sec. 34 of the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill / Act
1. Mar 2011: Consultations with the DPP re: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill commenced. DPP responded 6th May 2011. Neither Section 34 nor Schedule 6 as now contained in the Act (i.e. AoJPI 2011 proclaimed on 30 Aug 2012) were in the draft bill sent by the Minister of Justice. [Ref 8]
2. 07 Nov 2011: Boodoosingh’s judgment in Galbaransingh and Ferguson was delivered. Following is the full November 7, 2011 judgment of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh in the extradition matter of businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson. [Ref 1]. AG Ramlogan retained James Lewis QC to advise on what course of action, if any, should be taken after the November 2011, ruling of Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh [Ref 7].
3. 11 Nov 2011: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill laid in House of Representatives for 1st reading [Ref 13]. Draft Bill at 1st Reading in the Lower House on has S34 deadline trigger as "the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted" [Ref 2]. Hansard for 11 Nov shows the Bill being read for the 1st time and no debate on it - move to have 2nd Reading on 18 Nov 2011 [Ref 3].
4. 18 Nov 2011, Debate in the House on the Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill began. Section 34 was introduced in that Bill in the House of Representatives ("the House") Section 34(2) at start of 2nd Reading [Ref 2] states:
"34(2) On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except—(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process ofthe Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."
The bill was debated and the period increased to ten (10) years from seven (7) years during the Committee Stage [Ref 3, pages 133-134]:
"Question proposed: That clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Mr. Chairman, we propose an amendment to clause 34(2) as circulated:
“Delete the word 'seven' and substitute the word 'ten'‟.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I think the hon. Member—
Mr. Imbert: Yes, what is the policy behind going from seven to ten? Because this is a situation where there is a delay and you are allowing the judicial officer to discharge the accused. In your original Bill it was seven years, after a delay of seven years, now ten. Why ten? Are you picking this from some Commonwealth standard? Why ten?
Mr. Volney: No, you see, it is a paradigm shift and what we would like to do is to start with ten, to be conservative with ten, and at the appropriate time we could always lessen it. That is how we look at it at this time.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Are you proposing that we keep seven?
Mr. Imbert: Yes, I do not know why you want to amend it. Ten years is a long time between charge and trial, you know—somebody waiting for ten years.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Should we keep it at the seven, are you prepared to vote for the Bill? Would you vote for it?
Mr. Imbert: Yes.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: For the entire Bill?
Mr. Imbert: You hear us say we opposing the Bill?
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: No, I do not know, I am asking?
Mr. Imbert: Did you hear us say we are opposing the Bill?
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Well, we will keep it as seven. I withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr. Imbert: Mr. Chairman, I crave you indulgence, we went a little too fast. I just have one clause that we skipped over, clause 31 and that is it. Could we go back to clause 31?
Mr. Chairman: Okay, before we go to clause 31, let me just put the question because I do not want to leave this thing hanging. Are you withdrawing?
Mr. Imbert: Yes, I think they said so. They are taking out the amendment.
Mrs. Persad-Bissessar: Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by the Minister of Legal Affairs who has quite some experience in the criminal courts, that we would prefer to keep it, to amend it to ten.
Mr. Chairman: All right, so could I put the question, hon. Members?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill."
Bill with Committee Stage amendments undergoes 3rd Reading and requires a special majority of three-fifths or at least 25 Ayes): it is passed unanimously by 35 MPs present [Ref 3].
5. 22 Nov 2011: Administration of Justice (Preliminary Inquiry) Bill laid in Senate for 1st Reading [Ref 13]. Hansard for proceedings on 22 Nov 2011 show the Bill being laid in the Senate and a motion being passed to move to 2nd Reading on 29 Nov 2011 - so no changes on 22 Nov 2011 [Ref 4]. At this time, draft Bill has Section 34 as follows [Ref 5]:
"34. (1) Except in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6, where the proceedings are instituted on or after thecoming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master may discharge the accused.
(2) On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within ten years after the proceedings were instituted, except—(a) in the case of matters listed inSchedule 6; or(b) where the accused has evaded the process ofthe Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."
Schedule 6 does not include fraud cases [Ref 5].
6. 29 Nov 2011: Debate begins in Senate on 2nd Reading [Ref 13]. Min. Volney in his opening remarks during the 2nd Reading, between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, curiously says [Ref 6, pages 20-21]: "Clause 34 would provide for the discharge of the accused on the grounds of delay, except for the offences identified in Schedule 6 where the time of coming into force of this Bill, the trial at the assizes has not commenced within 10 years of the commission of the crime, the judge shall discharge the accused."
However, subsequent conributors to the debate still refer to S34 being based on the time of first proceedings. Sen. E. Prescott SC alludes to impact of S34 on fraud and bidrigging cases. He reads his version of S34 between 4:15 and 4:30 pm [Ref 6, page 115]:
'Clause 34(2)—and 34(2) is where the bane of the thing is: "On an application by the accused person, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within ten years after the proceedings were instituted…"
“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.'
-
Part II
AG Sen. Anand Ramlogan SC, in his contribution made between 4:30 and 4:45 pm, notes [Ref 6, page 124]: “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.”
Bill enters Committee Stage involving the whole Senate at 9:30 pm [Ref 6, page 224]. S34 amended upon motion by ex-Min. Volney between 11:15 and 11:30 pm [Ref 6, pages 280-281]:
'Question propose: That clauses 34 stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Volney: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that clause 34 be amended as circulated: Delete and substitute the following clause:
"Discharge on the grounds of delay - Schedule 6
34. (1) Where proceedings are instituted on or after the coming into force of this Act and the Master is not, within twelve months after the proceedings are instituted, in a position to order that the accused be put on trial, the Master shall discharge the accused and a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded.
(2) Except—
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court, after the expiration of ten years from the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed—
(c) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence; or
(d) no trial shall commence in respect of that offence.
(3) Except—
(a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or
(b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court,
where—
(c) proceedings have been instituted;
(d) an accused is committed to stand trial; or
(e) an order is made to put an accused on trial, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a Judge shall, on an application by the accused, discharge the accused and record a verdict of not guilty if the offence is alleged to have been committed on a date that is ten years or more before the date of the application."
Question put and agreed to
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.'
Draft Bill with Committee Stage amendments then proceeds quickly to 3rd Reading and vote. Division taken at p.m. as special three-fifths majority is required. Bill is passed unanimously by 29 Senators present and Senate adjourns at 11:34 p.m. [Ref 6, pages 283-285].
Opposition Leader says that [Ref 19]:
"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. "
7. 09 Dec 2011: Draft Bill passed by Senate returns to the House [Ref 13] as required when Bills passed by the House are amended by the Senate [Ref 15]. Hansard shows Bill debate started between 6:00 and 6:15 pm [Ref 14, page 109]. MP Colm Imbert notes the significant change to S34(2) between 6:30 and 6:45 p.m. and asks for the reasons for the change [Ref 14, pages 126-127]. The Bill was passed unanimously by 37 MPs present without amendment between 6:45 and 7:00 p.m. [Ref 14, pages 132-134].
8. 16 Dec 2011 President of the Republic assents to the Bill – Act No. 20 of 2011 [Ref 13].
9. 17 Dec 2011 James Lewis QC presents his opinion on appeal as to extradition to AG Ramlogan [Ref 7].
10. 19 Dec 2011: AG Ramlogan announces his decision not to appeal Boodoosingh J's decision because Ish Galbaransing and Steve Ferguson will be tried locally [Ref 7].
10b. 20 Dec 2011: AG Ramlogan, in responding to a release by the US Embassy on 20th Dec 2011, said in a statement:
"Of paramount importance is the question of where... the defendants are likely to be brought to justice in the quickest and shortest possible time. Not appealing means that the way is cleared for courts in Trinidad and Tobago to commence the trial of the defendants without further delay. It does not mean that the defendants will walk free without facing trial—a possible prospect if the State appealed. “The Attorney General has every confidence in the ability of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to competently and fairly try these defendants and deliver justice according to law.” [Ref 7]
11. Feb 2012: Ministry of Justice requested from the DPP an indication of the number of matters to which 34(3) of the Act would apply [Ref 8].
12. 22 May 2012, the DPP's office reponded by way of letter to the MoJ, advising thate there were forty-seven (47) matters for which committal papers had been received for offences committed more than ten (10) years ago and which were not covered by Schedule 6 INCLUDING Piarco 1. [Ref 8]
13. 20 Jul 2012, AG Ramlogan leaves T&T in period 20 Jul - 04 Aug 2012. [Ref 9]. Minister of Environment & Water Resources Ganga Singh acts as AG during his absence [Ref 16].
14. 24 Jul 2012, Judiciary and Justice Sector Committee meeting was held, with the ex-Min. of Justice Volney and DPP Gaspard in attendance. According to the DDP's letter: "During this meeting, the effect and to some extent, the import of Section 34 of the Act were raised. This prompted a response by the Minister of Justice that Cabinet had made a decision." [Ref 8]
DPP maintains that "I had never been asked to comment on the significance of section 34(2) and 34(3), prior to the Bill being introduced into the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago on the 11th of November 2011." [Ref 8]
15. 06 Aug 2012, the ex-Min. of Justice Volney tabled Cabinet Note J (12) 29 which sought Cabinet’s approval to proclaim the Act with effect from January 1st 2013 [Ref 9, Ref 12].
16. 31 Aug 2012: Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 comes into effect due to partial proclamation by President. Under this Act section 34(2) and 34(3) are of such effect that any matter involving offences committed over ten (10) years ago cannot now be tried unless they are excepted by Schedule 6 of the Act [Ref 10]. None of the assurances given by AG Ramlogan were effected [Ref 19].
16.1 2 Sept 2012: The Express' Asha Javeed is first to present to the public, the early proclamation of Section 34 and its implications for some high profile cases [Ref 20].
17. 12 Sep 2012: A Bill to repeal the “oversight” of the controversial Section 34 in the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 2011 is unanimously passed by 35 MPs in an emergency session of the House [Ref 11, Ref 17].
18. 13 Sep 2012: The draft repeal Bill moves to the Senate where it is passed by 25 of 30 Senators present - 5 [Independent] Senators voted against [Ref 17].
19. 14 Sep 2012: President assents to draft repeal Bill [Ref 18].
20. 20 Sep 2012: Leaked Cabinet Note J (12) 29 dated 06 Aug 2012 – published in Express – page 3 – refers to Cabinet Minute 1807 of 23 Dec 2011 as being relevant [Ref 12]. Hon. Prime Minister issues a Statement to the Nation after 7:15 p.m., in which she outlined her actions and advised that ex-Min. Volney has been fired [Ref 9].
21. 21 Sep 2012: Opposition leader issues his timeline of events surrounding S34 [Ref 19]. He said:
"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?"
References:
1. Ruling by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, 07 Nov 2011:
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/ISH--Steve-Ruling-136342608.html
2. Version of the Bill tabled for reading in house 11 Nov and 18 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31.pdf
3. Hansard for 1st reading in the House on 11 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111111.pdf
Hansard 18 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111118.pdf
4. Hansard for reading in the Senate 22 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111122.pdf
5. Version of the Bill tabled for reading in the Senate 22 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31-1rS.pdf
6. Hansard in the Senate 29 Nov 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111129.pdf
7. Trinidad Guardian article, 11 Sep 2012, on QC Lewis' advice given on 17 Dec 2011 to AG Ramlogan:
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-10/qc-appeal-over-ish-and-steve%E2%80%99s-extradition-ag-ignored-legal-advice
8. Full media statement by DPP Gaspard, 12 Sep 2012:
http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/blog/?p=6707
9. Statement by PM Persad-Bissessar, 20 Sep 2012:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/kamla-persad-bissessar/statement-from-prime-minister-kamla-persad-bissessar/10151433378527846
10. Legal Supplement Part B–Vol. 51, No. 142 – Trinidad & Tobago Gazette, 30 Aug 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/ln2012-348.pdf
11. Trinidad Guardian article on Repeal of Section 34, 13 Sep 2012: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-13/mps-repeal-section-34-after-amendments
12. [need to add PDF of leaked Cabinet Note J (12) 29 - printed in Trinidad Express, 20 Sep 2012, page 3.]
13. Link to Parliament TT website which contains the documents related to the progress of the The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill, 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28&id=623
14. Hansard in House of 09 Dec 2011:
http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111209.pdf
15. The Process of Lawmaking:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=66
16. Trinidad & Tobago Gazette (Extraordinary), No. 128 - 25th July 2012:http://www.news.gov.tt/EGazette/Gazette%202012/Gazette/Gazette%20No.%20128%20of%202012.pdf
17. Progression of The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) (Amendment) Bill, 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28&id=643
18. Assent of The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) (Amendment) Bill, 2012:
http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2012-15.pdf
19. Media statement by Opposition Leader giving timeline from his viewpoint:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/opposition-leader/the-clause-34-timeline/419292051464999
20. Asha Javeed's release of the early proclamation:
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/President_moves_to_end_preliminary_court_enquiries-168290866.html
-
JUSTICE-GATE TIME LINE re: Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 Section 34
by Niala DB on Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 12:12am ·
SECTION 34 TIMELINE
(some parts have been copied and pasted from the online news becaue I am not a legal luminary and don't want to make incorrect edits)
_________________________
1995-2001: Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh allegedly defraud the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago of over $1 billion in relation to construction contracts in the new Piarco Airport Project.
March 2011: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) senior counsel Roger Gaspard consulted about theAdministration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 . DPP not asked comment on the significance of section 34(2) and 34(3). At this time section 34 or Schedule 6 as now contained in the Act were not in the draft bill sent by the Minister of Justice.
6th May 2011: Director of Public Prosecutions senior counsel Roger Gaspard comments on the act
7th Nov 2011: Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh's decision to quash the extradition of Steve Fergusson and Ishwar Galbaransingh on corruption charges. (This simple means that the court deems thhat TT is the best place to try both men) THE BILL IS LAID 4 DAYS LATER.
11th November 2011: the Bill is introduced into the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago
29th November 2011: Clause 34 is changed on a motion in the Senate by the Hon. Minister of Justice. The effect of that change was to prevent the prosecution of offences not covered by Schedule 6 where the conduct alleged occurred more than ten (10) years ago. (Schedule 6 excludes white-collar crimes such as sedition, terrorism, piracy, money laundering or offences under the Larceny and Forgery Acts). This has serious international implications. Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh COULD HAVE CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 34 SINCE THE TEN YEAR PERIOD HAS PASSED.
DPP is not consulted about this change to clause 34 of the Bill.
The implications of Section 34 appear to have slipped past Parliamentarians.
16th December 2011: received the assent of the President on the 16th of December 2011. Instructively, on the 19th of December 2011 the Attorney General announced his decision not to appeal the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Boodoosingh, that the decision to return Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson to the United States of America, was unjust and oppressive. Doubtless, when he announced that decision, the Attorney General must have had in mind the provisions of section 34.
24th July, 2012: DPP attends a meeting held by the Judiciary and Justice Sector Committee at the Chief Justice’s Conference Room at the Hall of Justice on One of the items on the agenda was the Implementation Process for the Regime under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.The effect and import of section 34 of the Act are raised. This Minister of Justice declares that Cabinet had already made a decision.
31st August 2012: Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 comes into effect.
Under this act section 34(2) and 34(3) are of such effect that any matter involving offences committed over ten (10) years ago cannot now be tried unless they are excepted by Schedule 6 of the Act. However, Schedule 6 does not apply to the captioned matters. REMEMBER: (Schedule 6 excludes white-collar crimes such as sedition, terrorism, piracy, money laundering or offences under the Larceny and Forgery Acts). Section 34 allows those charged under the act to apply for the charges to be dropped if they allegedly committed offences more than ten years previously.
10th September 2012: Businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson file applications on Monday to be freed of charges relating to corruption charges in the Piarco Airport project.
Section 34 is not yet repealed.
DPP write AG Anand Ramlogan on the matter
11th September 2012: DPP learning of the proclamation Section 34 in the press, writes Attorney General Anand Ramlogan suggesting that the Act be repealed immediately with retroactive effect.
AG cites reasons not to repeal section 34
12th September 2012: Businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson can be freed of corruption charges says Dana Seetahal since the application was filed (to drop all charges against them) while section 34 was in force and they are entitled to the benefit of the act.
Seetahal states that when repealing the section 34, there should be provision so that the law has retroactive effect to a specific date ( so the offenders have no room for litigation)
AG declares section 34 be removed; it cannot stand on its own “ without absurdity”
DPP declares that the original clause he saw has been changed.
DPP states that the original document he viewed did not indicate a date range when offences were committed as a basis for discharge
DPP declares no parallel to Sections (20 and (3) in the entire Commonwealth
Parliament convenes for the purpose of repealing the Act.
SOURCES
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-09-12/ish-steve-can-still-go-free%E2%80%94seetahal
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Breaking-News---Gaspard-Breaks-Silence-169487316.html
````- Move 7th Nov 2011 Justice Boodoosingh's item up - it has been placed in the 2012 items.
- Add 09 Dec 2011: Amended Bill that was passed in Senate returns to the House of Representatives and is unanimously passed there - with the changes intact. [Check the TT Parliament's website.]```````
-
Refer to the Act's Progression webpage at: http://www.ttparliament.org/publications.php?mid=28&id=623
They only published certain versions of the Bill. So the first version is available via clicking on 1st Reading in the Lower House on 11 Nov 2011 - this version has S34 deadline trigger as "the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted": http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31.pdf
Hansard for 11 Nov shows the Bill being read for the 1st time and no debate on it.
The Bill then moves to 2nd Reading, Committee Stage and 3rd Reading in Lower House on 18 Nov 2011. As I said above, the substantial change to S34 at Committee Stage in the Lower House was to change the deadline trigger to "the trial has not commenced within ten years after the proceedings were instituted" - Hansard here: http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hh20111118.pdf
Now, ttparliament doesn't publish a link to PDF of the Bill upon leaving the Lower House in the "3rd Reading and Passage" text as it did for the "1st Reading" text - this is presumably because Bills shouldn't change between the time it leaves the Lower House and enter the Senate. So the version of the Bill upon leaving the Lower House is to be found in the "1st Reading" text in the Senate on 22 Nov 2011: http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2011h31-1rS.pdf
Hansard for proceedings on 22 Nov 2011 show the Bill being laid in the Senate and a motion being passed to move to 2nd Reading on 29 Nov 2011 - so no changes on 22 Nov 2011: http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111122.pdf
Again, since the Bill hasn't changed, ttparliament doesn't have any revised version of it in the '2nd Reading" text on the Progression webpage.
I refer now to Hansard on 29 Nov 2011: http://www.ttparliament.org/hansards/hs20111129.pdf
-
Administration of Justice Act delayed for 6 months
Denyse Renne Guardian 29/12/12
The implementation of the remaining sections of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act 2012 is likely to be pushed back by six months. The act, which was to take effect from January 2, 2013, would have seen all preliminary inquiries in the magistrates court being abolished and replaced by sufficiency hearings taking place before masters of the High Court.
Justice Ministry sources say the decision to push back the date of implementation came after meetings with various stakeholders. Sources say the act cannot be implemented yet since there “is too much infrastructure [needed] for it to take effect.” The appointments of ten additional masters to preside over matters, as well as other logistical details, are yet to be finalised.
Instead of speeding up proceedings, the last-minute decision to push back the implementation has caused some delay in the magistrates courts, it was added. Sources say at least three magistrates have expressed concern over starting preliminary inquiries in murder cases since they are unsure how to proceed. The magistrates, sources say, have adopted a wait-and-see position.
In his address at the opening of the 2012-2013 law term in September, Chief Justice Ivor Archie said the Judiciary would not be rushed through the process of eliminating preliminary inquiries. He said: “All the ducks must be lined up or chaos will ensue right after start-up and we will simply create a fresh and intractable backlog.
“It is clear that any new system that is put in place will have to absorb a huge influx of new matters in addition to those already in the system, for which transitional arrangements have to be made.” Referring to Section 34 of the act, which had to be repealed after its early proclamation, Archie maintained that such implementation ought to have been done as a whole and not partially.
Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, asked about her views on the postponement of the implementation, said a lot of work still needed to be done and it was not professional or responsible to extend the date at the last minute. She questioned the long wait in announcing the new date, saying if this was the case, it ought to have been announced several weeks ago.
Seetahal said the original act was intended to abolish preliminary inquiries and replace them with a paper system, in a process that would be quick, so that the accused would not wait for years. So far, masters presided over civil matters, she said, and appointments of masters to preside over criminal matters were yet to take place.
“From my recollection, I have not seen any advertisements for these vacancies,” she added. In addition, police officers needed to be trained in getting statements, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) needed additional staffing and there was also a need for auxiliary court staff, Seetahal said.
She added that the creation of Criminal Proceedings Rules (CPR), as mentioned in the act, was also still to happen and with all the work still to be done, the act should either be rescinded or amended to change the date. “All of these changes will require a lot of work. You don’t even have training. Nothing is in place,” she said.
Court protocol and information manager of the Judiciary Jones P Madeira, in a brief telephone interview, said Archie had stressed at the opening of the law term the process should not be rushed. “The CJ is on record as saying he would not be hurried into the implementation,” Madeira added.
He admitted there were a lot of things to be put in place and said the Judiciary was working with the various stakeholders. Madeira said there was an Inter-Ministerial Justice Committee which met often with the Judiciary and other stakeholders.
What will the act do?
Instead of preliminary inquiries in the magistrates courts, there will be sufficiency hearings. These involve the prosecution bringing all witness statements before a master. If there is sufficient evidence or a prima facie case is made out, then the accused is committed to stand trial, thus bypassing the magistrates court. The act is geared towards reducing the timeframe in which criminal matters are heard in the High Court and reducing the workload of the magistrates courts and the backlog of cases there.
MORE INFO
In August, the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was partially proclaimed by President George Maxwell Richards. The proclamation was gazetted on August 30. Section 34 of the act would have allowed some accused to apply for the charges against them to be dropped if the offences in question had been committed more than ten years previously.
Following its early proclamation there was uproar from various sectors. Archie, along with the head of the Criminal Bar Association, Pamela Elder, SC, and Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, SC, said they had not been informed of the contentious section. In September, the PM fired Justice Minister Herbert Volney, who piloted the act through both Houses of Parliament.
In her address, Persad-Bissessar maintained there was no conspiracy behind the early proclamation and Volney had acted on his own accord and misled her Cabinet. She said: “The Minister of Justice had a duty to faithfully and accurately represent the position and views of the Honourable 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.”
-
Not at all comfortable with putting PC hearings in the hands of a "master"... why not just hire more magistrates? I understand what they trying to do and why though... just not sure this is the proper means for achieving the ends. I also wish "they" would stop being lazy in talking about "infrastructure"... and just describe for the public what the problems are. They are more logistic in nature, and Dana Seetahal does a great job of highlighting some of those, namely resources... human capital and training.
-
Not at all comfortable with putting PC hearings in the hands of a "master"... why not just hire more magistrates? I understand what they trying to do and why though... just not sure this is the proper means for achieving the ends. I also wish "they" would stop being lazy in talking about "infrastructure"... and just describe for the public what the problems are. They are more logistic in nature, and Dana Seetahal does a great job of highlighting some of those, namely resources... human capital and training.
Every time I see reference to the Master, it reminds me of old Dr Who episodes!
-
Every time I see reference to the Master, it reminds me of old Dr Who episodes!
Masters are used here where I practice was well but I've only encountered them in family court and for violations of probation hearings. I don't know what qualifications they will be asking for, but my concern is whether they'd be sufficiently qualified and versed in the law. Then again, many magistrates/"district judges" here are not even lawyers... they just run for office like any other politician.
-
Every time I see reference to the Master, it reminds me of old Dr Who episodes!
Masters are used here where I practice was well but I've only encountered them in family court and for violations of probation hearings. I don't know what qualifications they will be asking for, but my concern is whether they'd be sufficiently qualified and versed in the law. Then again, many magistrates/"district judges" here are not even lawyers... they just run for office like any other politician.
And magistrates in England are usually just rich guys who wear the correct old school tie...kind of like the old Lord of the Manor. Most of their work is handing out statutory fines for parking, or other driving offences, disturbance of the peace etc. Anything requiring a jail sentence is usually referred by the magistrate to criminal court. However, I think they have certain statutory jail sentences for things like driving while banned etc.
-
FS, here is a timeline that is more independent....a bit lengthy but good reading....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/sentinelTT/doc/346011085492604/)
Thanks, Brownie, but it says I "do not have permission to read this doc" >:(
hhhhmmmm....sorry. I forgot its a closed group although I'm sure they said the document could be shared :-\.....In any event, TT laid it out for you above......
-
Case against repeal of Section 34 starts today.
T&T Guardian Reports.
Blackstone Chambers heavyweights Queen’s Counsel Michael Beloff and David Pannick will face off against each other today as businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson fight for their freedom. The two are challenging the repeal of the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.
Lord Pannick and Beloff are both Oxford-educated and belong to the same chambers in London, but will be on different sides of the fence when the matter starts in the Port-of-Spain High Court before Justice Mira Dean-Amorer at 9.30 am.
They are among the five QCs who were flown in to T&T for the court matter, which is expected to continue throughout the week. Emotions are set to run high as relatives and friends of the businessmen and curious onlookers are expected to pack the courtroom to capacity in anticipation of the outcome.
The claimants—Galbaransingh, Ferguson and Maritime Life General Insurance Company and businessman Ameer Edoo—will be contending that they petitioned the court for freedom before the act was repealed in September last year. They are charged with committing fraud amounting to millions of dollars arising out of the Piarco Airport Enquiry.
The early proclamation of Section 34 of the act cleared the way for Galbaransingh and Ferguson, along with 47 others, to have court cases ten years and older dismissed. If the claimants are successful in their petition, charges arising out of the Piarco Airport scandal will be dropped.
Galbaransingh and Ferguson were first indicted in 2005 in a Miami federal court on numerous fraud and money-laundering charges stemming from alleged bid-rigging between 1996 and 2005 on contracts for the $1.6 billion Piarco International Airport expansion project.
However, the businessmen won their judicial review hearing against the decision by Ramlogan to sign extradition warrants against them on October 9, 2010. Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh ruled that the decision was “unjust and oppressive.” Ramlogan later said he would not pursue an appeal in the extradition of the businessmen because of the lengthy legal process involved and because they were expected to come to trial in T&T shortly.
The US Government openly expressed its displeasure over the turn of events, saying it was “disappointed by the outcome of the case.”
The Section 34 story
Section 34, controversially proclaimed on August 31, 2012—ahead of the rest of the act—would have allowed certain accused to walk free if their cases had not started within ten years of the commission of an offence. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar called for an emergency sitting of the House of Representatives on September 13 for Section 34 to be repealed.
Persad-Bissessar blamed Justice Minister Herbert Volney for the fiasco and fired him from her Cabinet.
The legal teams
Leading the high-powered legal team for the claimants is Beloff, together with Edward Fitzgerald, QC, and Fyard Hosein, SC, who will be representing Ferguson and Maritime Life General Insurance Company. Galbaransingh will be represented by Andrew Mitchell, QC, while senior counsel Sophia Chote will appear for Edoo.
Appearing on behalf of the Attorney General will be Pannick, together with Allan Newman, QC, junior counsel Gerard Ramdeen and solicitor general Eleanor Joye Donaldson-Honeywell.
Other claimants
Petitions for freedom were also filed by former Airports Authority executive Amrith Maharaj and Maritime executives John Henry Smith and Barbara Gomes, as well as the company itself and Maritime Finance, Galbaransingh’s Northern Construction Ltd, Fidelity Finance Leasing Company Ltd, former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, former works minister Carlos John, and former national security minister Russell Huggins.
These cases are expected to come up later this week.
-
Volney: 34 is my lucky number
Originally printed at http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Volney-34-is-my-lucky-number-202876911.html
(http://media.trinidadexpress.com/images/volney_audi_34.jpg)By Asha Javeed asha.javeed@trinidadexpress.com
April 13, 2013
Numbers are oftentimes symbolic.
For instance, in the betting game Play Whe, the number 34 is blind man.
For the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, the number 34 and the section of law which it refers to is a vulnerable point for the People’s Partnership administration.
Section 34 is a section of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act which was proclaimed ahead of the other sections and allowed businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, among others, to apply to the courts to be declared innocent because their legal matters were more than ten years old.
Former justice minister Herbert Volney was fired over the fiasco.
But he has developed an affinity to the number, so much so that his new car, a red Audi, carries the number plate PCY 34.
The subject caused much discussion in the blogging and Facebook community yesterday with one blogger stating: “34 is the new 36 for you, oui”. (In Play Whe, 36 is jackass)
In response to the commentary on the subject, Volney stated: “Isn’t she a beauty? I propose to ride on 34 my lucky number all the days of my life as it has brought me true emancipation. And who vex lorse.”
The defiant St Joseph MP, who last week expressed surprise at High Court Judge Mira Dean-Armorer’s decision to dismiss the lawsuits of Galbaransingh and Ferguson on the constitutionality of the repeal of Section 34, went on to say:
“And I truly have found with it the peace of Jehovah God. Those who run from adversity will be consumed by it is the message in my story. I have baptised my wheels in the name of 34, that it be a remembrance of the courage of my conviction to do what was necessary to address the worm in the belly of my task only myself to become the worm itself.”
Former government minister and CLICO official Carlos John, another one with interest in the Section 34 ruling, also selected the number 34 for acquisition of his daughter Candice’s new vehicle.
That silver two-door Mercedes-Benz coupe is PCS 34.
-
Well once he enjoying it
-
Anybody actually taking on this clown?
-
Shameless,wutless, nasty, stink, dutty red negro! Real jokes in this place yes.
-
Shameless,wutless, nasty, stink, dutty red negro! Real jokes in this place yes.
It is a disgusting show of contempt for the people.
-
Read this article...and tell me if you REALLY think he care one ass:
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-04-15/volney-not-me-and-pp-again
Never again! That’s the position from the People’s Partnership’s St Joseph MP Herbert Volney on two counts: never again wearing jeans to attend Parliament as he did last Friday; and never again wanting to contest St Joseph for the People’s Partnership in a general election, beginning in 2015.
“I decided in recent weeks I don’t want to contest again because the PP will lose St Joseph and the entire East-West Corridor to the PNM, as this Government is operating exactly how (former Prime Minister) Patrick Manning was—not listening to the people,” Volney said yesterday. “I’ll have my own say in 2015 if Government continues as they are—St Joseph people will know who not to vote for.’’
Volney has been a PP backbencher since being fired from the post of Justice Minister last September in connection with the Section 34 proclamation issue. In an interview yesterday, Volney said House Speaker Wade Mark called him in after last Friday’s House of Representatives session to advise him against wearing jeans—instead of the traditional suit—to the House as he had done that day. Volney’s attire had been the subject of some after-session debate by PNM MPs last week.
PNM’s Amery Browne, who expressed concern, said MPs do not come to Parliament in jeans since the dress code under protocol for MPs is a suit. Yesterday, Volney said the Speaker did not reprimand him, but cautioned him about wearing the jeans and a sport jacket to Parliament. “The Speaker spoke to me about my attire after the session last Friday, yes,” he said.
“I explained I had come straight from my constituency—that’s how I am attired when I work among the people—and rather than be late for Parliament to go and change into a suit, I decided to come in my sports jacket and jeans. “I informed the Speaker that I meant no disrespect and the next time I will come in my lounge suit. He spoke to me on the issue and I agreed with him. He didn’t reprimand me, we just had a mature chat. The matter was sorted out.”
Volney said he had come last Friday to the Parliament in his new red Audi A6, which bears a the licence plate PCY 34. Explaining the licence plate, Volney said: “I chose 34 as that number has made me unusually respected in T&T—I see it as my lucky number...Also, three and four make seven, which is also my lucky number.
“Indeed, there should be no big celebration on the recent judgment concerning Steve Ferguson on the Section 34 issue, since the truth hasn’t really prevailed,” he said. “The Privy Council also overturns constitutional matters like these all the time.” Volney said he had given the Solicitor General a statement on the Section 34 issue as an affidavit, but this was not used in the issue, though a statement by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan was. He said the AG had made certain findings which were “wholly inconsistent” with his.
“I was the minister who conceived Section 34 and piloted it, so my evidence should have been primary evidence and the AG’s statement, secondary evidence,” Volney said. “But the court didn’t have the benefit of the primary source of evidence which was me.” Volney, who says he was “emancipated” by the Section 34 issue, said: I’m free to represent society with my views...I seek nothing more from this Government. Not me and the ‘monarchy’ again—I done with dat! I can’t have these kinds of bedfellows again.”
“I will certainly have my say in 2015, but I won’t be returning to contest. I’ve notified my constituents. If Government continues going the way they are—not listening to the people like Mr Manning did—they’ll be decimated in St Joseph and the East-West Corridor in general election and will return to their 15 ‘heartland’ seats.”
He added: “The PNM doesn’t even have to work St Joseph, people won’t be voting PNM in 2015, they’ll just be voting against the PP. At this rate, the same thing that happened with Manning will happen with Kamla Persad-Bissessar. They’re making the same mistakes and heading to similar destruction.” Asked if he would speak out against the PP in 2015, Volney said: “I’ll do what my conscience tells me to...”
Asked if he would heed PP requests for him to contest again, Volney added: “I leave it in God’s hands. The way the PP’s going now, I will not be a part of that. But two years is a long time in politics, they can still make a turnaround. They need to start listening to the people and she needs to get rid of a few people in her Cabinet.” Volney, who says he votes on special majority legislation according to bills, said he supported the Anti-Doping in Sports bill last week.
But he added: “The epicentre of change has always been St Joseph, it’s like an earthquake that ripples in all direction...and the most powerful position I’ve held is to be a Member of Parliament. One can bring down a government or make a government.”
-
Everyday I ask myself what next, they can't get any more obscene. Then I'm proven wrong.
-
Everyday I ask myself what next, they can't get any more obscene. Then I'm proven wrong.
Always remember we are the land of the limbo low is very low.
-
Volney: Not me and PP again
Published: Monday, April 15, 2013Gail AlexanderText Size: 12px 14px 16px 18px 20px 22px Gail Alexander
Published: Monday, April 15, 2013
'PNM will regain corridor in 2015'
Never again! That’s the position from the People’s Partnership’s St Joseph MP Herbert Volney on two counts: never again wearing jeans to attend Parliament as he did last Friday; and never again wanting to contest St Joseph for the People’s Partnership in a general election, beginning in 2015.
“I decided in recent weeks I don’t want to contest again because the PP will lose St Joseph and the entire East-West Corridor to the PNM, as this Government is operating exactly how (former Prime Minister) Patrick Manning was—not listening to the people,” Volney said yesterday. “I’ll have my own say in 2015 if Government continues as they are—St Joseph people will know who not to vote for.’’
Volney has been a PP backbencher since being fired from the post of Justice Minister last September in connection with the Section 34 proclamation issue. In an interview yesterday, Volney said House Speaker Wade Mark called him in after last Friday’s House of Representatives session to advise him against wearing jeans—instead of the traditional suit—to the House as he had done that day. Volney’s attire had been the subject of some after-session debate by PNM MPs last week.
PNM’s Amery Browne, who expressed concern, said MPs do not come to Parliament in jeans since the dress code under protocol for MPs is a suit. Yesterday, Volney said the Speaker did not reprimand him, but cautioned him about wearing the jeans and a sport jacket to Parliament. “The Speaker spoke to me about my attire after the session last Friday, yes,” he said.
“I explained I had come straight from my constituency—that’s how I am attired when I work among the people—and rather than be late for Parliament to go and change into a suit, I decided to come in my sports jacket and jeans. “I informed the Speaker that I meant no disrespect and the next time I will come in my lounge suit. He spoke to me on the issue and I agreed with him. He didn’t reprimand me, we just had a mature chat. The matter was sorted out.”
Volney said he had come last Friday to the Parliament in his new red Audi A6, which bears a the licence plate PCY 34. Explaining the licence plate, Volney said: “I chose 34 as that number has made me unusually respected in T&T—I see it as my lucky number...Also, three and four make seven, which is also my lucky number.
“Indeed, there should be no big celebration on the recent judgment concerning Steve Ferguson on the Section 34 issue, since the truth hasn’t really prevailed,” he said. “The Privy Council also overturns constitutional matters like these all the time.” Volney said he had given the Solicitor General a statement on the Section 34 issue as an affidavit, but this was not used in the issue, though a statement by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan was. He said the AG had made certain findings which were “wholly inconsistent” with his.
“I was the minister who conceived Section 34 and piloted it, so my evidence should have been primary evidence and the AG’s statement, secondary evidence,” Volney said. “But the court didn’t have the benefit of the primary source of evidence which was me.” Volney, who says he was “emancipated” by the Section 34 issue, said: I’m free to represent society with my views...I seek nothing more from this Government. Not me and the ‘monarchy’ again—I done with dat! I can’t have these kinds of bedfellows again.”
“I will certainly have my say in 2015, but I won’t be returning to contest. I’ve notified my constituents. If Government continues going the way they are—not listening to the people like Mr Manning did—they’ll be decimated in St Joseph and the East-West Corridor in general election and will return to their 15 ‘heartland’ seats.”
He added: “The PNM doesn’t even have to work St Joseph, people won’t be voting PNM in 2015, they’ll just be voting against the PP. At this rate, the same thing that happened with Manning will happen with Kamla Persad-Bissessar. They’re making the same mistakes and heading to similar destruction.” Asked if he would speak out against the PP in 2015, Volney said: “I’ll do what my conscience tells me to...”
Asked if he would heed PP requests for him to contest again, Volney added: “I leave it in God’s hands. The way the PP’s going now, I will not be a part of that. But two years is a long time in politics, they can still make a turnaround. They need to start listening to the people and she needs to get rid of a few people in her Cabinet.” Volney, who says he votes on special majority legislation according to bills, said he supported the Anti-Doping in Sports bill last week.
But he added: “The epicentre of change has always been St Joseph, it’s like an earthquake that ripples in all direction...and the most powerful position I’ve held is to be a Member of Parliament. One can bring down a government or make a government.”
-
Rowley releases section 34 email ‘conspiracy’ .....calls of President to appoint Integrity Commission
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Rowley-releases-section-34-email-conspiracy-208188301.html#idc-container
By Richard Charan
Story Created: May 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM ECT
Story Updated: May 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM ECT
OPPOSITION Leader Dr Keith Rowley today read an exchange of emails alleging a conspiracy meant to silence the media and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in connection with the proclamation of Section 34.
The emails which were released by Rowley during debate on his no confidence motion in the government, detailed a plan to tap the phone of DPP Roger Gaspard, remove him from office, and dig up dirt on a Guardian reporter pursuing the Section 34 story.
Among the email addresses mentioned by Rowley - anan@gmail.com , surujrambachan@hotmail.com, garygriffith@hotmail.com and kamlapb1@gmail.com.
However, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan responded to the charges, has denied the emails anan@gmail.com belonged to him, saying he had nothing to hide and the claims made by Rowley was a shameful attempt to damage the international reputation of the government.
He said the claim was "pure and utter fabrication", "an act of
political desperation", and "nothing short of character assassination".
Opposition Chief Whip Marlene McDonald responded by saying that the Attorney general had failed to respond to Rowley's motion.
The email exchange is purported to have happened last September
when there was swift public outrage sparked by the early proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011.
Section 34 enabled persons who stand accused of an indictable offence to apply to a judge to throw out a case if more than ten years had passed since the commission of the alleged offence and if the trial had not yet started.
United National Congress (UNC) financiers Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson were among several accused who applied to the court to be freed and whose cases were thrown out in the High Court and now appealed. Section 34 was eventually repealed in a special sitting of the Parliament.
The no confidence motion being debated reads: Whereas the sanctity of the Parliament and lawfully constituted institutions and other authorities are fundamental to our democracy and must be protected at all times; and Whereas by a series of actions, the UNC-led Government of Trinidad and Tobago under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has attacked and conspired to undermine key institutions of State, namely: The Judiciary; The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; The Parliamentary Opposition; and The Media; and Whereas other Members of the Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago, specifically, the Attorney General and the Minister of Local Government have also participated in such attacks against these important institutions of our democracy: Be it resolved that this House confirms its loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.
Rowley called on the office of the DPP to take action to protect citizens, and for President Anthony Carmona to moved swiftly to appoint members to the Integrity Commission so that it could investigate the claims made.
Debate is expected to continue into tonight.
-
C News Live
Rowley reads email on Guardian reporter: "Do a trace on her, every reporter has skeletons in their closet" - Mr. Speaker soon after a most slanderous article appeared on Denise Renne.
C News Live
Rowley quotes email: "Everything is already in place in DPP's office. Nothing is out of the ordinary yet. Spoke with PM and she is furious."
C News Live
Rowley quotes email between Anand and Gary Griffith: "I need access to taps in the DPP's office. I want to know what his next move is."
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481482_517687801611766_284986636_n.jpg)
-
[1] From: anan@gmail.com
Date: Sat 2 Sep 2012 22:11:00 – 0400
To: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Update
My lady, please relax, everything is in place, nothing to worry about. We will soon chat.
[2] Subject: Re: What’s up
To: anan@gmail.com
From: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:07:36 +0000
I am worried AG. I do not want this to blow up in our faces. This has to be done seamlessly.
[3] Subject: Re: Update
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
From: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:15:14 +0000
How are things going with this, do you need to brief me on anything. Did you make contact yet? Will he be on board. I don’t want surprises.
[4] From: anan@gmail.com
Date: 9/06/12 22:02:45
To: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Subject: Worry not
Nothing will be traced back to you. We are always united.
[5] Subj: Monies owed
Date: 9/06/12 11:38:04 AM SA Western Standard Time
From: kamlapb1@gmail.com
To: anan@gmail.com
CC:
Are you sure everything is in place. Did you chat with the DPP and ask him about it? Try and find out.
Btw, she says you are asking for much money.
[6] Subject: Re: Monies owed
TO: kamlapb1@gmail.com
From: anan@gmail.com
Date: 9/06/12 12:15:01
I scoff that it’s too much. We are the ones taking the risk. At the end of this I want a helipad on my roof top.
There is no price for freedom they know this. I do not know why you engage her.
I am yet to approach him, but will do soon.
[7] Subject: Re: Monies owed
To: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
From: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Date: 9/06/12 12:35:45
It’s not a matter of engaging, she has done so much for us and I appreciate her. Tone down your requests and focus elsewhere for now.
[8] Subject: Re: Monies owed
To: kamlapb1@gmail.com
From: anan@gmail.com
Date:9/06/12 12:45:11
As you wish my lady, Take care and we shall chat later.
[9] From anan@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:15:40-0500
To: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com;Roodal@tstt.net.tt;surujrambacan@hotmail.com
Subject: Help needed
There’s an article a reporter from Guardian called me about involving our boys. I need you to get your feelers out there and nip the story. Call the Sunday Guardian Editor and threaten her with ads if you have too just make sure the article does not come out. Will call you later.
[10] Subject: Meeting
On Sat. Sep 8, 2012 at 10:06:05 PM, wrote
Call a meeting, we need to talk urgently
[11]From: kamlapb1@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 14:51:18-0500
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net
Subject: Guardian article
AR:
What is going? Did you see the article. I thought you had friends in the Guardian. How could this happen? Fix it.
[12] On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM, anan@gmail.com wrote:
I saw the article. Not to worry, remember Opposition supported this. That will be our defense
[13] FROM: kamlapb1@gmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:27 PM
Deal with this mess.
Did she speak with James? You said he could be trusted. Does she have a copy?
[14] Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:30PM
James knows he cannot say anything. I doubt she has a copy. She is bluffing. I will retain him to write a letter refuting what she said. I sent out a release already. Remember everyone supported this. The PNM will loose out for allowing this to happen. Do not worry.
[15] FROM: anan@gmail.com
TO: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:33 AM
We have a problem. Things are getting heated. Need access to taps in DPP office. I want to know what his next move is. How soon can you arrange?
[16] FROM: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM
I will call SSA and get B. Ganpat is out of the country, he would be against this move. You know he leaks
[17]On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:51 AM, anan@gmail.com wrote:
I gave instructions to B to sent him Germany for two weeks. I want someone to monitor DPP for this week. He made some statements. The normal protocol applies.
[18] FROM: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
Mon Sep 10, 2012 at …AM
Everything is already in place in DPP office. Nothing out of the ordinary yet, Spoke with PM and she is furious
about the article. What about the reporter, tag her as well? My person..Guardian said she has a copy
of Lewis advice and is just toying with you. She does have someone in the US Embassy and is asking questions.
Last time we checked she contact Counselor to the Attorney General Channing Phillips.
Do you think someone there is feeding her?
[19] On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, anand@tstt.co.tt wrote:
That f….. whore don’t have sh… on me. More than likely she called Thomas at the Embassy.
Do a trace on her, every reporter has skeletons in their closet and post it to our FB people
Find out how the f… she quoted from something she has no access too. I want this by this evening and I want to know who is her source.
[20] FROM: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
Mon. Sep 10, 2012 at 11:15AM
Yes boss.
That will take the heat off a while when other things pop up. Deal with this matter AG
[21]From:kamlapb1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2012 23:51:31 -0400
To:anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
Subject: RE: Urgent
The US contacted me and are f…… angry, I thought you had a hold on this
This will cause major backlash. They even threatened to black-list us. Come up with a plan AG.
[22] Subject: Re: Urgent
To: kamlapb1@gmail.com
From: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
Date:Wed, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:44 +0000
Right now our best bet will be giving Gaspard a position on the bench and bring in a replacement. We could also feed our media people that Gaspard was part of the consultation at the Hall of Justice this year and he did not have a problem at the meeting. Let’s try the judge position first.
[23] From:kamlapb1@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2012 09:54:39
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
Subject: RE: Urgent
Have a chat with Archie, let them offer him the position. Archie is normally co-operative.
[24]Subject: Re: Urgent
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
From:kamlapb1@gmail.com
Have you dealt with the mess yet? We are getting bad press. Deal with this AG
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2012 09:59:44
[25] Subject: Re: Urgent
To: anan@gmailcom;anand@tstt.net.tt
From:captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2012 13:00:42 -0000
How things looking? The media are having a field day, PM is angry. The US also on the case.
[26] Subject: Re: Urgent
To: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
From:anan@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2012 14:00:22 +0000
Something is not right with that b..ch she knows too much. Did you find out her source? I was the only one who had this and she does not know Lewis. She does not know any QC, that I found out from her court colleague. She quoted things and asking questions to lawyers that no one knows.. did you find out anything on her..how are things at DPP.
[27] Subject: Re: Urgent
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
From: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2012 15:00
Will check with DPP status and give you a report later. The reporter does have a history. She has a file..it’s really touch and go. She was in Florida at an institution in late 2003. attempted suicide. Her family are PNM, dad was in jail and recently released. Also added some stuff and sent it to FB. They will take it from there.
[28] From: anan@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:47:08
To:surujrambachan@hotmail.com
Subject: Deal with the problem
This b…ch is becoming a problem to me. I’m told she has copies of documents and possibly cheques I don’t want
to leave anything to chance. I want this dealt with. find a way. I passed info to FB and they would f… her up but that’s not enough. Do something to slow her, PM is angry I assured her things will be good. I feel like I failed.. just deal with that b…ch soon if she has what I think, then we will all be implicated.
[29] Subject: Re: Deal with problem
To: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
From:surujrambachan@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:58:-2
What did you have in mind: Does she drive, walk, do you know her movements. We should meet and discuss. How soon.
[30] Re: Deal with problem
Hide Details
From: anan@gmail.com
To: surujrambachan@hotmail.com
Message flagged
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:00PM
I don’t care what you do, just deal with the problem soon. Gary has the file on her . Whatever is one, let it be done through a third party. This is getting out of hand now. PM is frantic and is begging me for a distraction. I don’t think anything on Hart will provide that. I gave her the assurance that things will be ok. I also advised her to get rid of Volney, but she is weighing her options.
[31] Subject: Re: deal with problem
To: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
From: surujrambachan@hotmail.com
Date: Wed 19 Sep 2012 10:08:32
She will face opposition if she even contemplates getting rid of you. But don’t worry, we will chat tomorrow and finalize plans for that girl .
-
This very easy to prove. If these emails turn out to be real, this go be the mother load.
-
Dise too much lackaray to read.
-
All this after Janice Sasha Maraj Thomas.
-
This could blow up in Rowley face.
-
This could blow up in Rowley face.
The man gambling big here. All or nothing.
-
This could blow up in Rowley face.
Ent!
Them emails looking like they come from the same place as the Patrick Manning/Basdeo Panday blogs.
-
Volney in shock
By Renuka Singh
Story Created: May 20, 2013 at 9:37 PM ECT
Story Updated: May 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM ECT
Former justice minister Herbert Volney has expressed shock over the e-mail correspondence read out by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley at the start of yesterday’s debate on the no-confidence motion against the Government.
Volney, in a telephone interview yesterday, said he was in Parliament for Rowley’s contribution supporting his no-confidence motion in the Government, but left before Attorney General Anand Ramlogan’s rebuttal began.
“I did not want to sit there and listen to the Government defend the indefensible,” Volney said.
He said some of e-mails Rowley read struck him as true and as such, led him to believe that the rest of the e-mails could also be true. He noted that in the e-mails, as read by Rowley, Ramlogan advised the Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to send him home and she did.
“I was shocked. They have given me a lot to think about,” Volney said.
“I have followed the factual matrix of the e-mails. When something has an undesigned coincidence it becomes conjecture and can carry the circumstantial evidence of fact,” he said.
He said if the e-mails were in any way true, then Ramlogan should be sent home until the matter was thoroughly investigated.
He said he felt “exonerated, wholly and completely exonerated” by some of the details of the e-mail correspondence.
“They have given me food for thought. I have to pray over the question of whether I want to remain with this Government,” Volney said.
Last September, during the height of the contentious early proclamation of Section 34 , Volney was fired from Government.
The Prime Minister had then said that it was Volney who had “misrepresented” the approval of the Chief Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions in the early proclamation of the clause. Since then, Volney has remained a member of the United National Congress (UNC) but has often called for Ramlogan to be removed from his office for his part in the fiasco.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Volney-in-shock-208243281.html
-
Them emails sounding rel bogus. If those are the email Rowley read he get ketch big time.
-
Them emails sounding rel bogus. If those are the email Rowley read he get ketch big time.
We know Rowley ent too smart but you would think he would have enough sense but to have some way of halfway proving the validity of the emails.
Then again it could have somebody or people in the PNM trying to f00k him .
-
Them emails sounding rel bogus. If those are the email Rowley read he get ketch big time.
We know Rowley ent too smart but you would think he would have enough sense but to have some way of halfway proving the validity of the emails.
Then again it could have somebody or people in the PNM trying to f00k him .
I figure is some PP sympathizer who set him up... but ah say lemmih hush and watch de ride.
-
For Rowley's sake I hope that he sought some form of verification of the authenticity of these emails, from an outside source. This just smells like a set up.
As Rowley himself stated, the information came from a PP whistle blower so whether legitimate or not it came from the government. Given the purported sophistication of the PP's PR machinery, a creative storyboard could be easily reproduced and sequenced to the actual dates to appear real, packaged and sent to the opposition leader. The use of emails back and forth just doesn't sit right with me where so many other instant messenger features are available, and less traceable. More than likely these emails were done via mobile. How does one extract and package that unless they were part of the communication chain themselves if it were authentic? Then again this gov't is known to be careless with covering their tracks visa vie Reshmi SIA appointment thinking it wouldn't be uncovered.
If his only corroboration was to align the email trail to actual events then that is surely not good enough, and sorry to say but any attempt to use state resources to verify this information is highly speculative as PP operatives are fully integrated into the state security apparatus.
He has been holding this information for 6 months, surely within that time he could have gone to the FBI or Scotland yard as the repercussions for putting this information out in the pubic domain has mass implications for both the government, himself and the party he represents.
I hope that Rowley's circle of trust, just as I have put these thoughts out there, evaluated the circumstances before he filed his motion. I guess we will wait and see the outcome.
-
Plot to cover up section 34
Rowley: ‘Anan’, ‘KPB’ targeted T&T Guardian reporter
Opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley wants the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Integrity Commission to probe e-mails purportedly bearing the names of frontline government officials who allegedly wanted to tap the DPP’s phone after the Section 34 furore. Rowley also claimed the e-mails revealed moves to shift the DPP to the judiciary and further discussed intended intimidation of a T&T Guardian reporter who broke the Section 34 story last September.
The PNM leader alleged the contents of the e-mails were all part of a conspiracy which was afoot among Government’s frontline members last September to deal with the heated situation the administration had to face when the Section 34 issue broke. Rowley dropped the bombshells when he launched yesterday’s Parliament debate on his motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her Government. In an immediate response, Persad-Bissessar announced that she had written acting Commissioner of Police, Stephen Williams, to start a probe into the claims.
Rowley said he had received the package of 31 e-mails on the Section 34 issue from a whistleblower six months ago and had sent it to the President. He gave the e-mail addresses as “kamlapb1@gmail.com”, “anan@gmail.com”, “captaingarygriffith@hotmail” and “surujrambachan@hotmail”. Rowley said the body of e-mails covered 17 days in September 2012 when Government was called upon to answer on the Section 34 issue. He said the unnamed whistleblower was a source who wanted the public to know about the situation and the information in the e-mails “points to grievous wrongdoing on the part of officials who had failed to answer questions on the issue.”
He cited the exchange of e-mails in that regard, particularly between the “kamlapb1” address and the “anan” address. He also noted that a particular target of the e-mail discussion was the DPP. Rowley noted one September 10 e-mail at the height of the Section 34 furore, in which “taps” were being sought for the DPP’s phones and a September 11 e-mail which alluded to offering the DPP a post in the judiciary and finding a replacement for him. He said: “They had problems with the DPP and it could only be solved by him being removed and bringing in a replacement.”
Rowley also cited how the owners of the e-mail addresses spoke about T&T Guardian reporter Denyse Renne, who had written the September 9, 2012, story which broke the Section 34 fiasco, how upset they were about that and what they wanted to do as a result. After those particular e-mails a vicious slanderous attack was launched against Renne on the Internet. “I leave you to come to the conclusions where there was any connection between the intent and the instructions in those e-mails,” he said. Rowley added: “This package of e-mails points to high crimes in the office of T&T. This matter, because of the nature of it, requires the urgent attention on the part of T&T because the one thing we cannot do is take the Government’s word.”
He said it may be that the proper examination of the e-mails would show that the mandate the Government received in May 2010 was sold for financial gains and the Government “was in the employ of people who used the Government’s mandate to protect themselves from courts locally and abroad.” Rowley also called on the DPP to examine what was said in Parliament yesterday and called on the Integrity Commission to discharge its responsibility to oversee the conduct of public officers. In the absence of an Integrity Commission, Rowley called on the President to ensure that body was appointed swiftly. Noting the comments made in the e-mails about Renne, for instance, Rowley said that was a harbinger of “terrible things “ and was how the mafiosi spoke when they met to discuss “people who were in their way.”
Noting one September 8 e-mail which spoke of calling a meeting, Rowley said the Prime Minister did indeed hold a special Cabinet meeting on September 10 on Section 34. “That September 8 e-mail seems to have been a harbinger of things to come. I leave you to draw your own conclusions,” he added. He also noted a September 19 e-mail on advice to fire former justice minister Herbert Volney, who was fired in connection with Section 34 on September 21. Rowley several times referred to former US president Richard Nixon and the Watergate issue, saying the same thing had happened there. There was largely dead silence on the PP side as Rowley spoke. AG Ramlogan took notes as the PNM leader talked. Before Rowley concluded, House Leader Roodal Moonilal asked to see copies of the e-mails. Moonilal later went over to the AG’s desk to confer with him. When Ramlogan was replying, PP backbencher Herbert Volney got up and left. Moonilal yesterday said debate would last four days, possibly ending Thursday.
-
Finding some holes already
this email in question anan@gmail.com
Google has a minimum 6 character limit when setting up a Gmail account. It used to be 5 now 6.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/954N-ul7umY
-
Who say second term ?
-
Finding some holes already
this email in question anan@gmail.com
Google has a minimum 6 character limit when setting up a Gmail account. It used to be 5 now 6.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/954N-ul7umY
so what you saying is a man was writing himself and responding back? ;D
-
With just a cursory scan of the dialogue you encounter 'Kamla' repeatedly referring to 'Anand' as AG. That didn't sound strange to Rowley ?
-
With just a cursory scan of the dialogue you encounter 'Kamla' repeatedly referring to 'Anand' as AG. That didn't sound strange to Rowley ?
Not really when they get position is like a handle they use to address each other like.
They will always call her PM in meetings in the office etc, same with the AG and ministers are always referred to as minister so I guess it can become a habit.
The Chief Justice everybody does call him chief regardless of the circumstance.
-
Never a dull week since this government take charge
-
good soldier ....maybe...........poor general.....definately, those emails read so basic, and as someone points out the names and references are too basic and simple minded...........even for trinis :-\ , a very poor attempt at setting a trap,shame on rowley if is ah trap and he get ketch, at the very least u would think that ah man would attempt to verify or even thinly confirm the plausibility of a supposed weapon in your arsenal.
he coulda even bounce emails off dem accounts to at least determine if they were real..............plus would people really communicate about that issue with email accounts with such names.
sigh
-
Finding some holes already
this email in question anan@gmail.com
Google has a minimum 6 character limit when setting up a Gmail account. It used to be 5 now 6.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/954N-ul7umY
that depends. google offers corporate services where they setup an corporate "google" with email, search functions, etc. customized to the client.
-
Big Big gamble
-
Finding some holes already
this email in question anan@gmail.com
Google has a minimum 6 character limit when setting up a Gmail account. It used to be 5 now 6.
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gmail/954N-ul7umY
that depends. google offers corporate services where they setup an corporate "google" with email, search functions, etc. customized to the client.
Tv6 i think last night confirmed the email was real. Cause they contacted him through it already. Plus Anand didn't deny that was his email.
-
Well Rowley say a disgruntled UNC give him d info. So leh we try to figure out who it is. I have my suspicions but leh me hear who all yuh tink it is.
-
lol!! dat have more bekenell dan ah Tom Clancy chapter 6
ah kinda agreein wit allyuh dat rowley get rope ah dope.....ah cyah beleive ah man go use fackin hotmail in any official capacity, far less put he actual name as the address.
somebody fill in the blanks fuh mih who is 'B' (that was goin Germany)?
-
lol!! dat have more bekenell dan ah Tom Clancy chapter 6
ah kinda agreein wit allyuh dat rowley get rope ah dope.....ah cyah beleive ah man go use fackin hotmail in any official capacity, far less put he actual name as the address.
somebody fill in the blanks fuh mih who is 'B' (that was goin Germany)?
Gary especially wouldn't make that mistake.
-
The email addresses are real.
-
Well Rowley say a disgruntled UNC give him d info. So leh we try to figure out who it is. I have my suspicions but leh me hear who all yuh tink it is.
in December 2012
-
A lot of the dates in the email exchange are wrong.
2 Sept. 2012 was a Sunday - email says "Sat 2 Sep 2012"
10 Sept. 2012 was a Monday - email says "Tue, 10 Sep 2012"
11 Sept. was a Tuesday - emails says "Wed, 11 Sep 2012" in six different places.
If Dr. Rowley had these emails for six months, should he not have done some basic checks to verify their authenticity?
-
A lot of the dates in the email exchange are wrong.
2 Sept. 2012 was a Sunday - email says "Sat 2 Sep 2012"
10 Sept. 2012 was a Monday - email says "Tue, 10 Sep 2012"
11 Sept. was a Tuesday - emails says "Wed, 11 Sep 2012" in six different places.
If Dr. Rowley had these emails for six months, should he not have done some basic checks to verify their authenticity?
Should have check before he send them to Max.
-
Well Rowley say a disgruntled UNC give him d info. So leh we try to figure out who it is. I have my suspicions but leh me hear who all yuh tink it is.
in December 2012
Yea in December 2012. Who u tink it is?
-
lol!! dat have more bekenell dan ah Tom Clancy chapter 6
ah kinda agreein wit allyuh dat rowley get rope ah dope.....ah cyah beleive ah man go use fackin hotmail in any official capacity, far less put he actual name as the address.
somebody fill in the blanks fuh mih who is 'B' (that was goin Germany)?
u won't believe how many people do that, I had to 'buse atleast three cousins 'bout dat, for one ting ah potential fraudster done have nough info but u jus by readin dat......especially now that more woman appending last names an' my cousin wife do dat .....she whole damn name.....so believe people does do dat...believe it.......dat havin been said, I leanin to d theory dat rowley holdin on to the bate an ah monkey strap
-
... More than likely these emails were done via mobile. How does one extract and package that unless they were part of the communication chain themselves if it were authentic? Then again this gov't is known to be careless with covering their tracks visa vie Reshmi SIA appointment thinking it wouldn't be uncovered.
...
He has been holding this information for 6 months, surely within that time he could have gone to the FBI or Scotland yard as the repercussions for putting this information out in the pubic domain has mass implications for both the government, himself and the party he represents.
Even if the emails were sent via mobile, all communications are synced with the Google server such that they can be accessed on a regular desktop. Unless I misunderstand your concern.
As for the FBI and Scotland Yard... what's their incentive for expending manpower and resources on a fight that is of no concern to either of them (jurisdictional issues on top of that)?
-
Well Rowley say a disgruntled UNC give him d info. So leh we try to figure out who it is. I have my suspicions but leh me hear who all yuh tink it is.
If things that bad that they taking anything from a man with that degree of credabilty...then we reach new lows.
-
As for the FBI and Scotland Yard... what's their incentive for expending manpower and resources on a fight that is of no concern to either of them (jurisdictional issues on top of that)?
I'm thinking that as a member of the government, the leader of the opposition is within his diplomatic right via local consulate offices to seek assistance if he cannot trust the independence of the state's security apparatus, that being said all he can do is request, the US and UK governments are not obligated to do anything.
-
Even if the emails were sent via mobile, all communications are synced with the Google server such that they can be accessed on a regular desktop. Unless I misunderstand your concern.
Missed this part, this was from a traceability stand point, I am not sure how the mobile networks work and whether via a phone's data connection the IP address that is assigned by their mobile network is either dynamic or static and easier to track. Thinking again it probably will work either way because the number of the handset associated with the IP address on the message header can be retrieved from the MNO.
I know from a home connection the ISP will know the residential address where the modem is located.
-
bring back manning yes.
-
bring back manning yes.
don't know if u serious or sarcastic but he and panday counterbalancin each other could be workable, not palatable, jus workable.........such is d sad state we in
sigh
-
This black vs Indian party structure needs to go. Sadly it not going anytime soon. The country needs a 3rd viable party.
-
bring back manning yes.
Never I tell all yuh buckle up 4 d ride but all yuh did not listen. So take Kamla and co in all yuh pweefen.
-
The email addresses are real.
Doesn't mean they are authentic...
Ramlogan pointed out that his name was Anand with a “d” and not “anan”. He reported that his one e-mail account for the past 15 years was anand@tstt.net.tt and he never had a gmail account. ” He said any Secondary Entrance Assessment student could have told him it takes three seconds to set up a gmail account “and if you don’t know how to spell the person name correct you will trip up and you will get catch”.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/AG-I-have-nothing-to-hide-208243691.html
As for the FBI and Scotland Yard... what's their incentive for expending manpower and resources on a fight that is of no concern to either of them (jurisdictional issues on top of that)?
I'm thinking that as a member of the government, the leader of the opposition is within his diplomatic right via local consulate offices to seek assistance if he cannot trust the independence of the state's security apparatus, that being said all he can do is request, the US and UK governments are not obligated to do anything.
Well he could certainly ask, I suppose.
-
Volney credits the Prime Minister for referring the content of the Opposition Leader's accusations to the police for investigation.
(https://twitter.com/expressupdates/status/336931243830693888)
-
Volney credits the Prime Minister for referring the content of the Opposition Leader's accusations to the police for investigation.
(https://twitter.com/expressupdates/status/336931243830693888)
I feel the muppets will do a better job than the police.
-
bring back manning yes.
Never I tell all yuh buckle up 4 d ride but all yuh did not listen. So take Kamla and co in all yuh pweefen.
And dahis strong language from weary, eh :) ...
-
This black vs Indian party structure needs to go. Sadly it not going anytime soon. The country needs a 3rd viable party.
pure jackassery yuh talkin....Black vs Indian .......when allyuh begin to understand what the united in UNC means you'd understand the root of racism within TnT and those who created it and seek to make TnT a vassal of India.
-
This black vs Indian party structure needs to go. Sadly it not going anytime soon. The country needs a 3rd viable party.
pure jackassery yuh talkin....Black vs Indian .......when allyuh begin to understand what the united in UNC means you'd understand the root of racism within TnT and those who created it and seek to make TnT a vassal of India.
:rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Although you could imagine that the email conversations could have happened.
If Rowley's final response does not to some measure authenticate the emails then the whole bekennell (as dutty calls it) is just that.
It would also be a serious indictment against his intellect. I for one would not see him as PM material again.
In fact the man will be considered a damn .......
-
It would also be a serious indictment against his intellect.
ENT!!.....as serious as this issue is, I go dead wit laugh if starboy siddong on dem ting for 6 months and eh bodder to check if dem ting authentic......ah refuse to believe ah man dat write big doctorate paper go ketch so
Moreover...that fatfack Volney is such an attention whore:
In the middle of the ppl debate bout email..ah see he drop dis load of obvious fecalith
...I was wrong to free Brad Boyce
By Anna Ramdass
Story Updated: May 22, 2013 at 6:52 AM ECT )
Former High Court judge Herbert Volney yesterday admitted he made an error in the Brad Boyce murder case.
Volney made the admission in his contribution to the Opposition’s motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister and the Government at the Parliament sitting at the International Waterfront Centre in Port of Spain.
He was speaking to the issue of the early proclamation of Section 34 and its intent to speed up the wheels of the justice system when he said, “And if I am to go as I know very well from the case of Brad Boyce which I embrace, I made an error. I admit I made an error, there was the Court of Appeal to correct to me, they too made an error and by the time it got to the Privy Council the case was ten years old and the Privy Council said (the case was) too old to be retried, 10 years.”
In 2006, the Privy Council in its ruling found that Volney was wrong when he instructed a jury to return a not guilty verdict in the Boyce trial.
The DPP had appealed Volney’s decision to free Boyce.
Boyce was accused of manslaughter in the death of Jason Johnson who was struck in the head during an altercation outside a nightclub in 1996.
In its ruling, the Privy Council questioned Volney’s rulings and noted that he took the decision to recall pathologist Dr Hughvon Des Vignes to ask him about his qualifications in forensic pathology.
The Privy Council had ruled that Volney was acting on his own accord when he called chief pathologist Prof Chandulal to ask him about the qualifications required for civil service appointment as a forensic pathologist.
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
I doh know nah wary, wit all d trippy ting going back and forth...........I tink d final analysis will be dat Rowley is witless and gullable, unless someting concrete comes to vindicate him
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
from potential prime minister to an afterthought. poor fella never in the loop.
------------------------>
manning real laughing these days. he saved us from that police chief and warned us about Rowley. Now rowley looking like ah friggin imps with this. patos had more vision than all these fools combined.
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
from potential prime minister to an afterthought. poor fella never in the loop.
------------------------>
manning real laughing these days. he saved us from that police chief and warned us about Rowley. Now rowley looking like ah friggin imps with this. patos had more vision than all these fools combined.
Who my Man patos nah he was arrogant etac etc. Vision not my man patos
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
from potential prime minister to an afterthought. poor fella never in the loop.
------------------------>
manning real laughing these days. he saved us from that police chief and warned us about Rowley. Now rowley looking like ah friggin imps with this. patos had more vision than all these fools combined.
Who my Man patos nah he was arrogant etac etc. Vision not my man patos
power got to his head. Re: vision: patos and his team had several good things in place, which the current gov't failed to build on. he knew what it would take to take trinidad and tobago forward (well compared to who's there now and potentially who may be next). but yea, swell-head syndrome was his undoing
-
He went mad.
-
What hypocrites ! Men talking about Rowley intellect when Kamla couldn't answer what colour the $1 bill is without referring to a minister.
Allyuh does forget or what ! There was a tsunami warning in the Pacific and Kamla say the ODPM taking all neceassary steps. Steups !
I not trying to defend Rowley on this garbage either but lewwe get real Rowley would wide the floor with Kamla in any one on one debate.
-
So according 2 speak out TNT on fb Dooks talkin bout is hack they get hack and hacking is a crime. So what is he saying the emails are true?
So people who actually listening what is old Dooks saying?
from potential prime minister to an afterthought. poor fella never in the loop.
------------------------>
manning real laughing these days. he saved us from that police chief and warned us about Rowley. Now rowley looking like ah friggin imps with this. patos had more vision than all these fools combined.
Who my Man patos nah he was arrogant etac etc. Vision not my man patos
power got to his head. Re: vision: patos and his team had several good things in place, which the current gov't failed to build on. he knew what it would take to take trinidad and tobago forward (well compared to who's there now and potentially who may be next). but yea, swell-head syndrome was his undoing
U know what if he was living by me I would have been concern bout his arrogance but he was not and as u say he had a vision for the country. Right now d School 4 d Blind have more vision than this Pathethic Posse. We as a people will never learn we said the same ting bout Robbie but his history has been kind 2 Mr. robinson and history will be kind to Mr. Manning.
-
What hypocrites ! Men talking about Rowley intellect when Kamla couldn't answer what colour the $1 bill is without referring to a minister.
Allyuh does forget or what ! There was a tsunami warning in the Pacific and Kamla say the ODPM taking all neceassary steps. Steups !
I not trying to defend Rowley on this garbage either but lewwe get real Rowley would wide the floor with Kamla in any one on one debate.
nah but jah after d last MoNC when dem fellas hijack d scene Rowley had to be atleast cognisant of the fact that his Ts needed to be crossed and Is dotted............his execution always seems to disappoint, I want good for him because the alternative is a scary ...scary thought, but if he doesn't develop some "street" smarts or atleast find an adviser with some, they will continue to make a fool of him, Kamla is certainly an idiot, but Rowley does eat "chain up" with ah potspoon..........he seriously needs to take a step back and examine his tactics and smarts or lack thereof and be more methodical in his pursuits or people may just give d PP another term and d sad ting is d PP real dunce and that in itself is ah stinging indictment of Rowley's distinct lack of guile.
-
Lawd......ah tired.....
-
Lawd......ah tired.....
Yuh harden ah tell yuh buckle up for the ride.
-
What hypocrites ! Men talking about Rowley intellect when Kamla couldn't answer what colour the $1 bill is without referring to a minister.
Allyuh does forget or what ! There was a tsunami warning in the Pacific and Kamla say the ODPM taking all neceassary steps. Steups !
I not trying to defend Rowley on this garbage either but lewwe get real Rowley would wide the floor with Kamla in any one on one debate.
nah but jah after d last MoNC when dem fellas hijack d scene Rowley had to be atleast cognisant of the fact that his Ts needed to be crossed and Is dotted............his execution always seems to disappoint, I want good for him because the alternative is a scary ...scary thought, but if he doesn't develop some "street" smarts or atleast find an adviser with some, they will continue to make a fool of him, Kamla is certainly an idiot, but Rowley does eat "chain up" with ah potspoon..........he seriously needs to take a step back and examine his tactics and smarts or lack thereof and be more methodical in his pursuits or people may just give d PP another term and d sad ting is d PP real dunce and that in itself is ah stinging indictment of Rowley's distinct lack of guile.
Agreed, he let down the whole team with this move. He just made himself look silly and impulsive. Part of this is because of a lack of technical knowledge but mostly because a lack of basic analysis of the content of the 'emails'. The info in its present form should never have been exposed by the Opposition Leader in Parliament . What's worse is he made it a central feature of a legitimate motion of no confidence against this hapless lot. The whole thing backfired in that the scrutiny has shifted from the sitting government to the opposition.
Asylumseeker was right. After the THA election he said words to the effect that Rowley could very well squander the victory. So said, so done.
-
Stueps acting like this go kill Rowely. Next week i bet the PP do some shit and Rowely look again. 7 day wonder till the next thing to talk about.
-
Stueps acting like this go kill Rowely. Next week i bet the PP do some shit and Rowely look again. 7 day wonder till the next thing to talk about.
Yeah they have more in the pipeline.
-
is Colm set up rowley... he looking to take the reigns ....
I wonder what will happen with the supporters if he does?
-
...
Asylumseeker was right. After the THA election he said words to the effect that Rowley could very well squander the victory. So said, so done.
:beermug:
I don't take any pleasure in what we're seeing on the political stage. We're witnessing a low point in political conduct and governance.
...
PREDICTION: The PNM will squander "this" ... moment? opportunity? goodwill? I can't quite find the word right now ... and, although it is somewhat a referendum on the PP, it is not a cakewalk to translate this resounding victory into a General Election reversal.
-
G: God, FBI could probe me, I’m not moving
Ramlogan said no external investigator has the jurisdiction under Trinidad and Tobago laws to investigate the alleged email leak.
TNT Finder News Editor
Published Thursday, May 23, 2013
Updated Thursday, May 23, 2013
“I don’t care who investigate me. It could be Rowley, it could be the FBI, It could be God”, declared Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to the media this afternoon.
The AG made the comment today as he dismissed the mounting calls for him to resign and for an independent investigator to probe the alleged leaked emails.
Ramlogan once again reiterated the email thread presented by the Opposition Leader in Parliament on Monday, was a document that contained a fabricated email thread, which was completely fabricated to create a divide between the Government, the DPP and the Chief Justice.
He said Dr Rowley trained his guns on Jack Warner who has since resigned from office and now it his turn.
'My back strong'
Ramlogan told the media “My back is strong” and “I am comfortable in what I do and to remain where I am in the knowledge that an investigation is taking place”.
At today’s post-Cabinet media briefing the Attorney General noted that under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago only the Police have the right to investigate criminal offences. He said the call by Dr Rowley to have the alleged leaked emails would require a change of the laws. Ramlogan noted however that the Police Commissioner has the right to consult with his Interpol counterparts and any external expertise required in any investigation.
Ramlogan said Dr Rowley’s by making the call is attempting to hoodwink the population.
He said so far those mentioned have denied all of the allegations Dr Rowley claims are in the email thread. He said the judiciary has denied any request was made to appoint the DPP as a judge and that the Guardian Editor has denied it has ever been asked to pull a story by the Government.
-
I find they acting like they have something to hide. Weird
-
SPY BUG IN DPP’S OFFICE
Tip-off brings shocking find
Published:
Friday, May 24, 2013
Anika Gumbs-Sandiford
At the height of the Section 34 controversy, a sophisticated laser spying device was discovered in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Roger Gaspard, SC. T&T Guardian investigations revealed the device was detected in November last year inside the conference room of the DPP’s office at the Winsure Building, Richmond Street, Port-of-Spain. Gaspard offered no comment on the matter when contacted by the T&T Guardian on Wednesday. Investigations revealed the device was detected after a search was carried out by both foreign and local information technology (IT) experts on the fifth floor of the building.
The T&T Guardian learned that an invisible infrared beam that is used to transmit conversations was found in the conference room, which is where the DPP normally holds briefings on various high-level cases involving past and former government officials and other matters such as the Calder Hart probe and the Clico enquiry.The conference room is also used when the advice of the DPP is sought by police officers on homicides and other criminal offences. On Monday, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, during debate of a no-confidence motion laid by him against Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her Government, revealed 31 e-mails, one of which referred to a plan to spy on the DPP during the Section 34 debacle and to offer him a judgeship so as to be able to replace him in the office.
Other e-mails suggested plans to interfere in the judiciary and possibly harm a T&T Guardian reporter in connection with the publication of a report on the controversial early proclamation of Section 34 in September. The controversial section, before it was repealed, cleared the way for businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, along with others, to have charges more than ten years old dropped in relation to the Piarco Airport Development project.
The e-mails were purported to have been sent from the e-mail addresses kamlapb1@gmail.com, anan@gmail.com, anand@tstt.net.tt, captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com and surujrambachan@hotmail.com. Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and other government officials have all denied any knowledge of the e-mails.
The bug at the DPP’s office was discovered after Gaspard received a tip-off and arranged for his office to be swept for spying and bugging devices by highly-qualified IT experts. The IT experts detected beams that showed a laser was being used to spy on the DPP’s conversations. One of the IT specialists who was part of the exercise revealed, “They detected certain rays that showed a laser was being used to spy on the DPP. “Someone can stay from the Port-of-Spain International Waterfront Centre and once they have a straight line of sight, and using the laser device, the conversations of the DPP can be heard.” The T&T Guardian understands the find sent shockwaves through the DPP’s office and steps have been taken since then to conduct frequent independent security sweeps of the building to ensure it is clean of such devices.
After Rowley made his claims about the e-mails, the Prime Minister referred the matter to acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams, who appointed Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson to head the investigation. However, there have been calls for an independent investigation.
Hi-tech bugging devices
Online checks show various spying devices are operated by an invisible infrared beam.
Among them is the Laser EMAX-3500 Laser Room Monitoring System.
According to the online ad for the device, it transmits an IR beam to the window of the target room.
The device consists of three parts—laser transmitter, laser receiver and an amplifier unit with audio-recorder—and allows conversations to be heard from a distance.
Both the transmitter and the receiver are built into standard single lens reflex cameras, allowing for perfect concealment.
How does a laser surveillance device work?
A laser microphone is a surveillance device that uses a laser beam to detect sound vibrations in a distant object. Wikipedia says this technology can be used to eavesdrop with minimal chance of exposure. The object is typically inside a room where a conversation is taking place, and can be anything that can vibrate (for example, a picture on a wall) in response to the pressure waves created by noises in the room.
The laser beam is directed into the room through a window, reflects off the object and returns to a receiver that converts the beam to an audio signal. The beam may also be bounced off the window itself. The minute differences in the distance travelled by the light as it reflects from the vibrating object are electronically converted to signals that can be converted back to sound.
Source: Wikipedia
These e-mails, which were among 31 read out by Rowley during the no-confidence debate, referred to plans to spy on the DPP:
·FROM: anan@gmail.com
TO: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:33 AM
We have a problem. Things are getting heated. Need access to taps in DPP office. I want to know what his next move is. How soon can you arrange?
·FROM: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com; anand@tstt.net.tt
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM
I will call SSA and get B. Ganpat is out of the country, he would be against this move. You know he leaks
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:51 AM, anan@gmail.com wrote:
I gave instructions to B to sent him Germany for two weeks. I want someone to monitor DPP for this week. He made some statements. The normal protocol applies.
·FROM: captaingarygriffith@hotmail.com
TO: anan@gmail.com;anand@tstt.net.tt
Mon Sep 10, 2012 at …AM
Everything is already in place in DPP office. Nothing out of the ordinary yet, Spoke with PM and she is furious about the article. What about the reporter, tag her as well? My person..Guardian said she has a copy of Lewis advice and is just toying with you. She does have someone in the US Embassy and is asking questions.
-
I tell alyuh this will get dirty. For innocent people they acting guilty. Now this news comes out. Rowely light the match. The fire now start
-
I tell alyuh this will get dirty. For innocent people they acting guilty. Now this news comes out. Rowely light the match. The fire now start
Let me say it again buckle up for the ride. It's going to be a hotttttt summer. Since we have summer now.
-
If dey innocent...it easy. Investigate it. In fact...let Rowley chose the investigators. It would put him in the graveyard politically.
But....dey missing a chance like this? Hm.
Now...I JUST was coming to post that Guardian Article here....saying is real Tom Clancy ting here in true. Buh a next article that wasn't posted was posted on the 23rd...
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-05-23/max-i-sent-e-mails-integrity-body-authentication
Max: I sent e-mails to integrity body for authentication
Published:
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Gail Alexander
Text Size:
Former President George Maxwell Richards says he sent Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s e-mails to the Integrity Commission for authentication after receiving them from Rowley last year. Speaking from his Maracas, St Joseph, home yesterday, Richards confirmed what Rowley and PNM PRO Faris Al-Rawi had both said about the e-mails being sent to Richards six months ago, after they were slipped to Rowley by a whistle-blower. Richards demitted office in March.
Rowley, speaking about the e-mails in Parliament on Monday, said he passed them to the head of state and awaited a reply. He said he also had called on the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Integrity Commission to probe them and for a new Integrity Commission board to be appointed to probe the matter. The last board’s term ended on March 13.
Yesterday, Richards said Rowley indeed given him the e-mails months ago. He said: “I passed them on to the Integrity Commission, as those e-mails, on the face of it, needed authentication, so the most appropriate body to handle that independently would have been the Integrity Commission.” Richards said it was not done with any fuss, bother or publicity but as a matter of course.
He said it was done in complete confidence so that the commission would first check out the authenticity of the e-mails and carry out any appropriate investigation that may have been required. Richards added: “I want to make it abundantly clear that this was done in absolute confidence and secrecy.” He said he was enjoying his retirement, which he described as a “mixed blessing.”
Contacted yesterday, Integrity Commission communications officer Mervyn Crichlow said the commission would issue a statement on the status of the e-mails. On Tuesday, Al-Rawi said the PNM, after forwarding the e-mails, had been awaiting word on the issue. He noted a new Integrity Commission was yet to be sworn in.
On March 12, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was reported to have said she had asked Richards to allow the new commission to be appointed by then President-designate Anthony Carmona. The Prime Minister said she requested that because the commission’s term was expiring a few days before Richards’ own term ended and it would have been be more practical for Carmona, who was sworn in on March 18, to make the appointments. She said Richards had obliged.
Since Carmona’s appointment, one of his priority tasks has been trying to finalise the appointment of a new Integrity Commission board. Yesterday, T&T Guardian contacted President’s House to ask when a new board would be appointed. A statement from the presidency said the head of state was addressing the appointment of commission members “with diligence and gravitas, despite the heavy workload of President Carmona.
“A major challenge is the reluctance to serve by persons who have been tentatively approached,” it also said. An official said it was hoped the matter would be finalised some time next month. The official added a short list of names had been compiled but intense scrutiny of the individuals, including one-on-one interviews, were being done, adding that Carmona, as an attorney and former judge, was very “hands-on and is going over everything in this matter from top to bottom.”
This matter too serious to be playing de ass over. And its with this in mind...when this file buss...I stopped...and listened carefully to each side...cuz is a real cesspool we in either direction it go. I checked.....only one email....anan@gmail.com doesn't exist. I was supposed to verify one more..but the one attributed to Capt. Griffith real...Ramberchan.....and KPB..and by his own admission..the tstt one.
Rowley's winding up arguments outlined the circumstances as thus:
-Got the info...recognized it as a "whistleblower" trying to release the info while protecting himself.....was shocked...passed it to Max.
-Max get it...say WDMC.....send it to the integrity commission
-IC impotent at the time. Still was. Still is. Term ended with Max....on the back of pressure by certain persons to leave the appointment of the new commissioners up to the incoming president.
-Rowley realising that now options getting trimmed away in terms of investigation. Questions of who to trust. Exposing it in public is lawsuit..and not necessarily uncovering the truth.
-Recognizing that the this was a circumstance where Parliamentary Privilege could be used...he used it
Logical sequence of events....cuz in my mind I wondering what manner of jackass he is to come and drop something like this just so for no reason.
Today (Thursday) his outline was the same...with additional caveats.
-He explained his lack of confidence in the DCP....dating back to the "assassination plot" where apparently 14 random men were held with no evidence..but held only due to the SOE in place..as suspects....and...because they were Muslim. He questioned the DCP as to what charges had been laid...what progress....etc....and got the reply more than once..."Well..we working on it." End Result: Nothing Coming out of the investigation. He also stated the fact that this individual was past the retirement age...and continually given a short term contract...and as such...is likely to know what side of his bread contains the butter..and would act accordingly.
-The Integrity in Public life act in his interpretation allows for the IC to investigate something like this. He mentioned the possible strategy of the AG (totally as USUAL doing his duty to the LETTER ::)) of stating that since the police are investigating it..then the IC cant...which is also in the Integrity in Public Life Act. However..his argument is..that this only relates to the non-declaration of assets....not a matter of this magnitude. In addition..there is NO Integrity Commission.
-He also mentioned the fact that when he spoke out against the Piarco Airport scandal...he was sent to the privileges committee...and expelled from Parliament. He made note of the fact that again..this Section 34..and this corelated scandal....revolves around that issue. In addition...it seems like the PM...has already determined what the outcome would be....and thus sent him to the committee...stating that there is no truth in it.....refusing to acknowledge scrutiny to herself and her office and her alleged conduct. He noted the contrasting speed of which the Speaker acted on the typed request to send him before the committee.....when it took almost a week for his motion of no confidence to get a hearing.
So where do I stand? Well.....lets put it like this.
If yuh playing all fours..and a man rest down a jack.......ent it BEGGING to get hang? All de noise and grand charge the other players could make.....if the jack there to hang...then hang it.
BUT
If yuh cyar answer...and trying to under trump when Jack call....den dat mean...yuh eh have nothing to hang it with.....no trump...or worse yet.....a 10.
Lets see how this goes.
-
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-05-23/integrity-body-%E2%80%98informal-probe%E2%80%99
e
Integrity body in ‘informal probe’
Published:
Friday, May 24, 2013
Text Size:
The Integrity Commission (IC) has pursued “informal inquiries” on processes towards authenticating the e-mails which Opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley received last year and which were passed to the commission by the former President George Maxwell Richards in March. A backlog of work is also starting to affect the commission adversely, the commission’s communications division confirmed yesterday.
The commission gave the comments to the T&T Guardian in response to questions in the wake of the release of the e-mails in Parliament on Monday. The e-mails are purported to bear addresses belonging to the Prime Minister and other high government officials and the contents allegedly involve a plot concerning the Section 34 issue. Rowley said he received the 31 e-mails from a whistle-blower last year and had sent them to the President Richards. He said he waited for developments and when none were forthcoming, he decided to raise it in the Parliament. He has called for it to be probed by the IC and for a new commission to be appointed following the expiration of the last commission’s term in March.
Richards told the T&T Guardian he passed the e-mails to the commission as a matter of course, as the material needed authentication and the most appropriate body to handle this independently would have been the IC. He said it was done in complete confidence and secrecy so the commission would carry out any appropriate investigation that might be required.
However, after the e-mails were disclosed this week, Government and Opposition members are now in disagreement on whether the IC can probe the e-mails. The Prime Minister and Attorney General say the IC’s powers do not extend to criminal matters such as those which may arise out of the issues in the e-mails.
The Opposition, however, says the IC is constitutionally empowered to monitor and probe conduct, practices and procedures, dishonesty or corruption. Asked his opinion on the arguments and IC’s powers in this matter, commission chairman Ken Gordon said yesterday: “In a sense this is breaking new ground. Before the commission can make any statement on this we will have to examine it and get the best advice before commenting on it one way or another. We have asked our legal people to look at it.” Following the T&T Guardian’s queries about the status of the e-mails, the commission’s communication division said documents from Richards were passed to Gordon under cover of a letter which states inter alia: “I am forwarding to you the attached documents which were passed to me in order for your commission to determine whether they disclose matters which should be investigated under the provisions of the Integrity in Public Life Act.”
The commission said Richards’ letter, dated March 4, 2013, was received on March 6. “It should be noted that this letter was received on the above date, March 6, 2013. The term of office of four of the five Integrity Commissioners came to an end on March 14, 2013, the fifth commissioner being the chairman, whose term began on November 1, 2011, (and) will terminate on October 30, 2014,” the commission said. “In the absence of a functioning team of Integrity commissioners, or even a quorum, no formal action can properly be taken. The e-mails are secured at the commission and will be discussed at the first meeting of the commission.” Asked if any effort had been made to ascertain the authenticity of the e-mails, the commission said: “We have indeed pursued informal enquiries by the appropriate arm of the commission to better prepare the relevant documentation, but before these can be pursued we must await the appointment of the commissioners.”
-
G: God, FBI could probe me, I’m not moving
Ramlogan said no external investigator has the jurisdiction under Trinidad and Tobago laws to investigate the alleged email leak.
TNT Finder News Editor
Published Thursday, May 23, 2013
Updated Thursday, May 23, 2013
“I don’t care who investigate me. It could be Rowley, it could be the FBI, It could be God”, declared Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to the media this afternoon.
The AG made the comment today as he dismissed the mounting calls for him to resign and for an independent investigator to probe the alleged leaked emails.
He said Dr Rowley trained his guns on Jack Warner who has since resigned from office and now it his turn.
Ah this sounds familiar.
-
It does seem strange dat dey appear to be panicking..........they should be lickin dey chops......yet, dais not confidence yuh seein',...........is more like it have ah shadow of truth and they fear that there will be deeper examination of their activities..........Rowley may have made an Ok-ish calculated gamble after all...........still should dot Is and crass Ts so as to be able to rebut on d spot......dais where he get hurt......but I get the feelin' he actually hit upon someting, especially given dat d UNC start "planning rallies" ::) to address dis "bed lies and non-issues" :P
Interesting indeed very interesting.........Asylum yuh might be wrong dis time boy...all ah we might be wrong and I would not mind being wrong on dis "Rowley's handling" .......we AG is ah pretty damn despicable man and a sexual deviant if all dem rumours yuh does hear is true ....andshould not be in dat office.
-
It does seem strange dat dey appear to be panicking..........they should be lickin dey chops......yet, dais not confidence yuh seein',...........is more like it have ah shadow of truth and they fear that there will be deeper examination of their activities..........Rowley may have made an Ok-ish calculated gamble after all...........still should dot Is and crass Ts so as to be able to rebut on d spot......dais where he get hurt......but I get the feelin' he actually hit upon someting, especially given dat d UNC start "planning rallies" ::) to address dis "bed lies and non-issues" :P
Interesting indeed very interesting.........Asylum yuh might be wrong dis time boy...all ah we might be wrong and I would not mind being wrong on dis "Rowley's handling" .......we AG is ah pretty damn despicable man and a sexual deviant if all dem rumours yuh does hear is true ....andshould not be in dat office.
As I said.....Rowley story was his story. Aspects in his story getting confirmed.....Max...the bug in the DPP office....all kinda ting. And if you listen in the debate...he showed the sequence of events....and why he did it like that....almost like a last resort.
De Jack dey waiting to hang.....buh dey moving like the ONLY trump they have is a 10.
-
In Dookeran's contribution he claimed that even if the emails were authentic they represented a private conversation and since no attempt was made to enact what was discussed then there is no issue.
Volney said that even if one part is found to be true then it should be investigated.
-
In Dookeran's contribution he claimed that even if the emails were authentic they represented a private conversation and since no attempt was made to enact what was discussed then there is no issue.
Volney said that even if one part is found to be true then it should be investigated.
So supposing two...or 14 men have a private conversation...and the topic comes up of killing a government minister....buh dey doh do nuttin.
Is no issue right?
-
It does seem strange dat dey appear to be panicking..........they should be lickin dey chops......yet, dais not confidence yuh seein',...........is more like it have ah shadow of truth and they fear that there will be deeper examination of their activities..........Rowley may have made an Ok-ish calculated gamble after all...........still should dot Is and crass Ts so as to be able to rebut on d spot......dais where he get hurt......but I get the feelin' he actually hit upon someting, especially given dat d UNC start "planning rallies" ::) to address dis "bed lies and non-issues" :P
Interesting indeed very interesting.........Asylum yuh might be wrong dis time boy...all ah we might be wrong and I would not mind being wrong on dis "Rowley's handling" .......we AG is ah pretty damn despicable man and a sexual deviant if all dem rumours yuh does hear is true ....andshould not be in dat office.
Ah tell alyuh so. They moving fraid. If you innocent then you should have no problems.
-
In Dookeran's contribution he claimed that even if the emails were authentic they represented a private conversation and since no attempt was made to enact what was discussed then there is no issue.
Volney said that even if one part is found to be true then it should be investigated.
So supposing two...or 14 men have a private conversation...and the topic comes up of killing a government minister....buh dey doh do nuttin.
Is no issue right?
this was ah interview?......I find d reporter shoulda aks dat???....but we journos is bunch ah cowards
-
side note: since when is volney taken seriously? there's another character we should never see or hear from again.
-
In Dookeran's contribution he claimed that even if the emails were authentic they represented a private conversation and since no attempt was made to enact what was discussed then there is no issue.
Volney said that even if one part is found to be true then it should be investigated.
So supposing two...or 14 men have a private conversation...and the topic comes up of killing a government minister....buh dey doh do nuttin.
Is no issue right?
None at all.
-
side note: since when is volney taken seriously? there's another character we should never see or hear from again.
How he reach there in the first place is the question. If we didn't remember his record on the bench surely people should have know something was up with him when he went on the platform with a rubber snake.
The member for Siparia made him a minister too.
-
In Dookeran's contribution he claimed that even if the emails were authentic they represented a private conversation and since no attempt was made to enact what was discussed then there is no issue.
Volney said that even if one part is found to be true then it should be investigated.
Dookeran is ah mad man ah wha?
Anyway, ah like Bourbon All Fours analogy too bad. :)
Rowley throw ah Jack in allyuh face - hang it.
-
side note: since when is volney taken seriously? there's another character we should never see or hear from again.
How he reach there in the first place is the question. If we didn't remember his record on the bench surely people should have know something was up with him when he went on the platform with a rubber snake.
The member for Siparia made him a minister too.
a major part of the problem when it comes to this govt and the member from siparia is that there were to many promises and egos to please when they took office. it was hate/dismantle everything closely related to the previous administration followed closely by putting 'we' people in prominent positions (due to promises they made). unprofessional and unqualified people are at the helm of too many offices and ministries.
speaking about unprofessional and unqualified, whey spalk?
-
side note: since when is volney taken seriously? there's another character we should never see or hear from again.
How he reach there in the first place is the question. If we didn't remember his record on the bench surely people should have know something was up with him when he went on the platform with a rubber snake.
The member for Siparia made him a minister too.
a major part of the problem when it comes to this govt and the member from siparia is that there were to many promises and egos to please when they took office. it was hate/dismantle everything closely related to the previous administration followed closely by putting 'we' people in prominent positions (due to promises they made). unprofessional and unqualified people are at the helm of too many offices and ministries.
speaking about unprofessional and unqualified, whey spalk?
D realization hit me like a ton of bricks that I working in the Public Service 20 yrs this month. A very scary thought. U hit the nail on the head. All kind of quacks and invalids who clueless. U do not replace technocrats wit party hacks, U have a country 2 run. They eh really care bout this place
-
speaking about unprofessional and unqualified, whey spalk?
gettin ah nex' spanish lesson while pullin on ah ten :P
-
58% disapprove of Persad-Bissessar's handling of the job as Prime Minister, compared to 53% in 2012. 37% approve compared to 38% last year
MFO Poll: Respondents believe that the general public has lost respect for the Prime Minister: Respect - 31%; Neutral - 31%; Disrespect -38%
MFO Poll shows that 48% approve and 46% disapprove of Dr Keith Rowley's performance as Opposition Leader. 6% of respondents didn't care.
-
Interesting wording in that poll ... Wording that could lead to chain-up.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/970450_606078146082912_1029334073_n.png)
-
PROBE COULD COLLAPSE
Top cop: E-mail investigation depends on if office holders make themselves available for interviews
By Irene Medina Associate Editor
Story Created: May 25, 2013 at 11:15 PM ECT
Story Updated: May 25, 2013 at 11:15 PM ECT
Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson’s investigation into the controversial e-mails alleging wrongdoing by the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and other senior Government officials could collapse if people refuse to make themselves available to be interviewed.
Acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams told the Sunday Express the interviews were purely “voluntary”, and the pace of the investigation will depend on the availability and co-operation of the office holders to be interviewed.
This means that deputy commissioner Richardson cannot compel anyone to be interviewed and must depend on the availability and cooperation of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Minister of Local Government Suruj Rambachan, as well as Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley—who brought the contentious e-mails to the Parliament last Monday.
As such, Williams said, there was no guarantee as to when the investigation will end.
“I have made it clear, (Richardson) is treating with the investigation as high priority and he is trying to complete it within the shortest period of time. He knows the importance of doing an investigation like this, where every single citizen is concerned and has an interest.”
He warned that there would be “no lagging around with this investigation which will proceed on a daily basis”.
Williams said Richardson was seeking to complete the investigation in the shortest period of time, but cautioned, “You can’t put a time-frame to an investigation to say it would be completed within a week or two weeks or three weeks.
“It depends on what is the availability of all the players who have to be interviewed. What is the availability of the Prime Minister? What is the availability of the Attorney General? What is the availability of the Opposition Leader?”
Williams added it was not a simple matter for the police to simply say it was going to interview the Opposition Leader.
“It is a challenge to interview all office holders, it is not a simple thing,” he said.
Asked why can’t the police set the agenda and schedule fixed interviews, Williams said, “Because an interview is a voluntary thing.”
Any of the office holders could choose not to be subjected to any interview so deputy commissioner Richardson, “could face a situation where an individual can say ‘I am not giving you any information’.”
He said, “The individual could say, he or she is not making himself available and will only do so with an attorney present. You can be confronted with all these situations.
“All those are things crop up in investigations when you are dealing with high office. It is not an easy thing, even though (Richardson) is treating it with high priority.”
Still, he assured that the investigation into the e-mails, which allege that the government could have been involved in attacks on the Judiciary, the media, and the independent office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, “is the highest priority for Richardson”, and there would be “no lagging time”.
Williams also said that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard has made no report to him, nor to Richardson, about bugging devices found in his office, as reported in the Guardian newspaper yesterday.
“I have been acting Commissioner August 7, 2012 to now, but the DPP has not shared with me any information that bugs were found at his office in November 2012.”
Williams questioned the article, saying the DPP has not confirmed the report nor has he commented on it.
“
The report, as of now, is not supported by the DPP and he did not commit himself to say that devices were found on his premises.
But I can also tell you I have received no information from the DPP of any bugs found in his premises in November 2012.
I have spoken with Deputy Commissioner Richardson and he said he has had no communication from the DPP in November 2012 about any bugs being found.”
Williams assured that the investigations will factor in the newspaper article.
“The deputy commissioner will see whether there is any confirmation or truth in it or if this is just another report.”
Asked about Richardson’s ability to lead this investigation even as he remains on borrowed time in the Police Service and is due to leave in November, Williams said Richardson was best suited to head the investigation.
“This is a priority investigation which has major implications to this country. It raises questions around the highest offices in the land in the context of government which are the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of the Attorney General.
“These are two critical offices. These two offices make a government. This also has to do with the Leader of the Opposition so this is a high priority investigation.
“So telling me that Richardson is leaving in November is irrelevant.”
On Thursday night at a public meeting in San Juan Rowley expressed concern about Richardson’s role, saying: “Richardson is a man who relies on the Government for his existence in the Police Service.”
Rowley warned that the very political life of the Prime Minister was at stake, and her government was at risk if the e-mails even had one iota, one modicum of truth.
He said while he was casting no aspersions on Williams the question to be asked was “why the Prime Minister is insisting that it goes there (Police Service)?”
But Williams has defended the Police Service, saying it is an independent body despite the fact that everybody tries to makes the organisation seem political.
“We have tried to stay professional and independent, staying away from any alignment to any political party. We keep along the white line so nobody can point a finger at the deputy commissioner, or at me and say that we are aligned to this political party or that political party. We actually stay totally away, 100 per cent away from any party.”
-
Ent they innocent let them make themselves available. Doh hide
-
Richardson takes lead
By Irene Medina
Story Created: May 25, 2013 at 11:12 PM ECT
Story Updated: May 25, 2013 at 11:12 PM ECT
Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardon is taking seriously a recommendation by Director of Public Prosecutions, (DPP) Roger Gaspard SC, that the Police Service seeks foreign assistance in the investigations involving the series of e-mails implicating government officials in wrong doing.
Richardson told the Sunday Express yesterday, “I have discussed it with both the Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams and the Director of Public Prosecutions and a decision is to be made.”
He could not say how soon a decision would come.
In his statement on the e-mails which were disclosed in the House of Representatives, by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley last Monday, the DPP said the Police Service could be hamstrung in their attempts to conduct a full and thorough investigation, given the fact that some of the e-mail providers are located in the United States of America.
Gaspard said, “It seems plain therefore, given the novelty and magnitude which define the perimeter of this investigation that there is a burning need to engage the services of universally heralded and credible professionals, who have the required experience in both forensic analysis in the relevant foreign jurisdiction ,as well as, in the conducting of investigations in matters of this type.”
The DPP added that such persons will play leading roles in the investigation and advised that the Police Service Act lends support in this regard.
According to 22(2) of the Police Service Act , “The Commissioner may, having regard to the qualifications, experience, skills and merit of a person who is not in the Service, appoint on contract such a person as a police officer for any specified period.”
Section 22 (3) also states that the Commissioner may appoint on contract for any specified period and purpose a person who is not a police officer.
-
Ent they innocent let them make themselves available. Doh hide
AG pledges full support
By Camille Bethel camille.bethel@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: May 25, 2013 at 11:11 PM ECT
Story Updated: May 25, 2013 at 11:11 PM ECT
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday dismissed any suggestion that he would not co-operate with police in the investigation into the Section 34 e-mails which were presented by Opposition PNM Leader Dr Keith Rowley in the Parliament last week.
Acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams has suggested that the police investigation into the emails will rely in part on the voluntary cooperation of office holders.
Asked by the Sunday Express if he would be willing to go along with any investigation into the Section 34 e-mails Ramlogan said: “How could that possibly be a question when we have been calling for the investigation. And of course if someone calls for an investigation then they are pledging their full support and co-operation for it.”
Asked earlier yesterday about his thoughts on a statement by Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard on Friday evening calling for international experts to investigate the section 34 e-mails Ramlogan said he is happy that Gaspard supported what he has been calling for from the outset.
“I made that call, others are supporting the call I made from day one, by pointing out the provision in the Police Service Act that allows the Commissioner of Police (CoP) to contract international experts or any form of expertise that the police service does not have in the conduct of police investigations and I am saying that was my position from day one, it remains my position and I think that it is the proper thing to do.”
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar could not be contacted yesterday.
-
The whistle blow-back
Published:
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Maxie Cuffie
Text Size:
I once had access to a whistleblower, while at the TnT Mirror, who claimed to be operating in the Prime Minister’s inner circle. I never found out who the person was or what motivated him, before the communication dried up and he disappeared through the Ethernet from whence he came.
He contacted me via Facebook, using a fake profile which has since been disabled, and was able to provide regular updates on matters involving the Prime Minister and her cabal which he considered to be of public interest. He once confessed to having access to a series of e-mails between the PM’s national security adviser Gary Griffith; and Cabinet ministers—Attorney General Anand Ramlogan; Foreign Minister, Suruj Rambachan and Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal.
His information, over the period we were in contact, proved to be 95 per cent correct—I insisted we would need to verify everything before publication. He even provided cell phone numbers to assist with the verification process. In the 5 per cent (when he was wrong) he provided information as to the whereabouts of the PM’s former engagements adviser Sasha Mohammed, which when we checked, proved not to be accurate and when challenged, he admitted to mistaking her name for someone else’s.
He had some minor inconsistencies too, in dates and times, but overall, I was amazed at how accurate his information consistently proved to be. On February 14, 2012, I was told that the PM was trying to have Diana De Souza, who was said to be a friend of hers from Penal, appointed as CEO of TSTT.
At the time De Souza was not even considered in the running and there was not even a hint there would need to be a replacement for then chief executive Roberto Peon. By March 21, Peon’s resignation was announced and on July 3, De Souza was announced as acting CEO.
I never tried to find out his identity. He had taken the additional precaution, he confided, of communicating with me through various Internet cafés. In any case, as the Mirror began to print his various exposés, there was a frantic attempt at the Office of the Prime Minister to find the identity of the whistleblower. The office was being swept for eavesdropping devices; employees were being vetted and subjected to polygraph tests, all in an effort to find out who was leaking the information. At least, that is what he told me.
As we continued to get information, including some on Cabinet deliberations, that he considered to be in the public interest, I urged him to be careful but, he assured me, he had taken every precaution and had no fear of being caught. I realised that the National Security apparatus was also zeroing in on me to ascertain the Mirror’s source/s of information.
I pretended not to notice. An attorney who is quite close to a senior government official who had been the subject of communication between the whistleblower and me suddenly sought to befriend me on Facebook, which was, I suspect, to gain access to my list of contacts.
Through the whistleblower, I first learnt that the Government had an obsession with journalists. There were those whom they had already compromised, others whom they were prepared to intimidate, and they had developed files on not just journalists, but influential media executives.
“Every journalist has skeletons in their closets,” the line recorded in one of the e-mails released by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley last Monday, was a view consistent with what the whistleblower had revealed was the approach to the media adopted by key members of the current administration.
Through the whistleblower I also learnt that the Attorney General was the member of Cabinet with whom the PM was closest and that they were in constant communication by SMS and e-mail and that the PM worked best late at night. Just as it had started, the correspondence stopped abruptly, long before September 2012 and the Section 34 fiasco. I have not heard from my whistleblower since.
A lot of what I read in the Opposition Leader’s e-mail exposé, however, was consistent with my whistleblower’s information and I think the Government, by denying it as a fabrication, has played right into the whistleblower’s hands. It makes a prosecution under the Interception of Communications Act that much more difficult. The errors, I suspect, may have even been deliberate. If, as they insist, the e-mails are fabricated, it makes a conviction which carries a fine of $500,000 and a seven-year jail term, almost impossible.
The Government’s response to the e-mails has been all over the place. It has ranged from denial of ever having such an e-mail address (AG Ramlogan); it’s cut and paste (the PM, after confirming that the e-mail address was in fact hers); to a total fabrication (Roodal Moonilal).
In any case, my whistleblower could easily claim justification for his actions in not only the Prime Minister’s pledge (made on January 4, 2011) to bring legislation soon to protect people like him who were leaking information on what they considered government wrongdoing, but also, he alleged, on the fact that the PM was the recipient of similar information when she was Opposition Leader from people who were well placed in the PNM administration.
The PM, therefore, owed her election to the very whistleblowers and is now facing what is tantamount to a whistle blow-back. However things work out, one thing is for certain: we have not heard the last of the whistleblowers. Maxie Cuffie runs a media consultancy, Integrated Media Company Ltd, is an economics graduate of the UWI and holds an MPA from the Harvard Kennedy School as a Mason Fellow in Public Policy and Management.
-
The opposition leader of the PNM is in the radio station right now listen in .
http://i955fm.com/
-
Rowley is good eh but it seem as if he gets agitated very quickly once he is pressed, even if he can adequately respond.
Office holders require a level of poise but I am still willling to compromise on that for a politician that is upfront and factual with the people.
-
Rowley eh Manning, Eric,Robbie, Bas, etc. He is just himself. You know how long we trying to get Jack to change and he almost make Prime Minister. Let Growley be himself. If allyuh not satisfied, doh vote for him. Plain and simple.
-
DPP Office not bugged
By CLINT CHAN TACK Wednesday, May 29 2013
NATIONAL Security Minister Emmanuel George yesterday said information sent to him from the police is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was never bugged as was claimed in a newspaper report and by the Opposition.
George made this disclosure to Newsday following the adjournment of the Senate. During the sitting, Opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi charged that nobody in Government was “getting hot and sweaty” to investigate a newspaper report that the DPP’s Office was bugged.
Al-Rawi alleged that a contractor, Super Industrial Services (SIS), was providing private security services to the DPP’s Office.
Checks on SIS’ website show the services it provides are civil engineering; mechanical engineering; plant construction and maintenance and the supply of concrete blocks and aggregates.
Speaking after the Senate’s adjournment, George said he did not know what Al-Rawi was talking about, regarding the SIS. “He has information I don’t have,” George said. Asked whether there was any investigation into alleged bugging of DPP Roger Gaspard’s office, George replied, “All I can say is I have gotten a report from the Acting Commissioner of Police that there is no bug found in the DPP’s Office.”
George said the report he received from Acting Commissioner Stephen Williams indicated that in January, “the police made a sweep of that office and nothing like that (an electronic listening/monitoring device) was found.”
Describing Al-Rawi’s claim as “typical of the PNM”, George said, “What they do is throw a lie out there and truth has to go running after it to see if he (truth) can catch him (lie).” George also said his ministry would be prepared to provide additional funding to the police if they need it to hire a cyber-crime expert to investigate the authenticity of a package of “emails” which Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley mentioned in his no-confidence motion against Persad-Bissessar and the Government last week. During the sitting, Planning Minister Dr Bhoe Tewarie and Al-Rawi crossed swords over Rowley’s email claims.
Tewarie said while Rowley was in his right to bring a no-confidence motion he (Tewarie) knocked Rowley for raising the email issue when its authenticity is suspect.
In response, Al-Rawi said he found it curious that certain Government senators did not understand that “there is privilege in the House.” Explaining this was inherent in Section 55 of the Constitution and Standing Order 26 (5), Al-Rawi said senators have the ability, “to raise a motion of privilege at any moment in time and without notice.”
Click here to send your comments on thi
-
George said the report he received from Acting Commissioner Stephen Williams indicated that in January, “the police made a sweep of that office and nothing like that (an electronic listening/monitoring device) was found.”
Wasn't the device found in November ?
Also the DPP called for foreign investigators into this .
-
Dr Rowley being harassed
Published:
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Text Size:
I put it to you that the Speaker of the House Mr Wade Mark ably abetted by the Prime Minister, in having Dr Rowley sent to the Privilege Committee, has contravened Section 42(a) of the Integrity in Public Life Act which says as below:
—An employee of the State…shall not be dismissed, suspended, demoted, disciplined, harassed, denied benefit or otherwise negatively affected because;
(a) He, acting in good faith on the basis of a reasonable belief, has
(1) Notified the Commission that his employer or any other person has contravened or is about to contravene this Act
(2) Done or stated the intention of doing anything that is required to avoid having any person contravene this Act
(b) His employer or any person believes he will do something in paragraph (a).
Dr Rowley, as an employee of the Parliament/State, caused the notification of the Commission of what, in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, he considered (via the said e-mails) contravened this Act. Please note that the Act does not require him to provide definitive proof of what the e-mails suggest but simply that he acted in good faith and has a reasonable belief that they are true.
Hence the action of the Speaker and the PM can be viewed as harassment of Dr Rowley and an attempt to have him disciplined and even denied a benefit and he is surely negatively affected.
Victor Darceuil
-
A good read
No to jungle justice
By Raffique Shah
AT all times, human beings must be able to distinguish right from wrong; it is what differentiates us from other life-species. At all times, too, man must have the fortitude to stand up for what is right, to speak out against injustice, whatever the consequences he may face for his outspokenness. Today I feel compelled to make such stand on an issue that many may deem unimportant, and for which I risk being condemned.
Tomorrow, the Privileges Committee (PC) of Parliament is scheduled to meet to consider a complaint against Opposition Leader Keith Rowley. I do not know the specific charge or charges Rowley faces, but I know they stem from the string of e-mails he introduced during the debate on a no-confidence motion against the Government that he piloted two weeks ago.
At the end of the debate on that motion, the Prime Minister moved that Rowley be referred to the PC, saying he had “wilfully and deliberately misled the Parliament by presenting documents which he knew were a mere fabrication”. Speaker Wade Mark, who in similar circumstances in the past took time to consider whether a prima facie case had been made before ruling on the request for referral, did not hesitate on this occasion.
I should add here that Rowley is very capable of defending himself. He proved that when the Integrity Commission accused him of wrongdoing in the “Landate affair’, and in other challenges he faced within the PNM when he ran afoul of then leader and Prime Minister, Patrick Manning. Rowley has publicly stated he is ready to face the consequences of his actions.
Still, what is at stake here is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice against which I must speak out. You see, eventually, Rowley may well have to face the PC or some other judicial body. But justice must be allowed to take its course, and no one must abrogate due process.
The fact is that the Prime Minister, on the very day Rowley read the e-mails into the records, stated in public that their veracity and the serious matters raised in them, some criminal, warranted proper and thorough investigations. As such, she formally reported the matter to the acting Commissioner of Police. Although she and the Attorney General, whose names featured prominently in the e-mail trail, denied writing, receiving or exchanging what were attributed to them, they provided no evidential proof of their innocence, just as Rowley produced no proof of guilt.
In accordance with the rules of natural justice, there should first be a thorough investigation to determine whether the e-mails are genuine or bogus—which process has begun, albeit in a contentious environment. Indeed, Deputy Police Commissioner Richardson and his team have already interrogated Rowley. Rowley has also agreed to hand over to the investigators his computers and other IT devices.
Since the investigations began, all parties have agreed there might be the need for foreign expertise to assist. Up to the time of writing this column (on Saturday), the Prime Minister, Attorney General and other Government officials named in the e-mails have yet to be interrogated by the police or provide their IT devices for examination.
At this stage, therefore, we do not know if any of the e-mails are genuine, or if they were fabricated (as Government personnel are suggesting), or if some other devious person or people devised the entire dossier to deceive the recipient and discredit senior members of the Government. I repeat, we do not know the truth—and that is fact.
In this hazy scenario, how can the Privileges Committee, which, as I understand it, comprises the Speaker, a few Government MPs, and fewer Opposition MPs, conduct its own probe and determine that Rowley is guilty of serious misconduct if not a criminal act (or acts)? Who on the PC has the IT investigative skills to prove the e-mails are bogus? Who among them can prove he “wilfully and deliberately misled the House”? None!
If they choose to proceed with the charade, they would underscore a point I made last week, more or less saying that Parliament has been reduced to a house of ill repute. What they will convene is a partisan lynch mob that has pronounced the accused guilty before the trial. And if everyone else in the country is happy with this descent into hell, I am not, and I say this loudly and clearly.
The proper course of action is for the police and whatever experts they choose to assist them, to expedite their investigations and draw conclusions. They may need to refer their findings to the acting Commissioner of Police and/or office of the DPP. Roger Gaspard has wisely recused himself from the investigations since his name and office are mentioned in the e-mails.
If the investigators unearth cogent evidence that Rowley fabricated the e-mails, then there may be no need for the Privileges Committee to sit. The DPP would prefer serious charges against him, he would face the courts and possibly be imprisoned... end of story. If they determine that he was duped into presenting bogus documents in Parliament, he would be discredited to the point where his leadership of the PNM will be at stake, and then the PC can be convened to deliver the coup de grace.
What if the investigations reveal that some or all of the e-mails were written by the office-holders named as the authors? That is unthinkable, but not impossible. Whatever the outcome, this sordid affair seems set to inflict serious damage to the body politic of the country. In any of the above scenarios, I reiterate, the Privileges Committee is not a court of first choice: that would be a case of jungle justice.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/No-to-jungle-justice-209813891.html
-
And as he generally is more time than not...Raffique Shah dead on the issue.
-
When I grow up I want to be Raffique Shah.
-
Chairman compromised?
Originally printed at http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Chairman-compromised-211647651.html
By Ria Taitt Political Editor
June 14, 2013
Once again, the Integrity Commission finds itself mired in controversy, as Government yesterday suggested that its chairman, Ken Gordon, had been compromised.
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday aggressively condemned the “secret” meeting held between chairman of the Integrity Commission Ken Gordon and Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley which took place at Gordon’s home, five days before Rowley’s explosive e-mail disclosures in the House of Representatives. “It reeks and smells of some kind of political conspiracy between the Leader of the Opposition and the chairman of the Integrity Commission to damage the Government and to taint it. Is this why Dr Rowley has been so strident in his calls for the Integrity Commission to investigate this matter?” Ramlogan said.
Stating that he would not yet go as far as saying that Gordon was unfit to hold office, Ramlogan called for a full disclosure of what was discussed at the meeting. “The position of the chairman of the Integrity Commission is almost akin to that of a Chief Justice. He sits in judgment of public officials,” he said. “He (Rowley) has painted the chairman into a PNM political corner, out of which it is very difficult for him to extricate himself,” Ramlogan stated.
Ramlogan said Rowley was a possible prime suspect and a central protagonist in emailgate. “The reason the police asked for his computer is obvious. They want to see whether or not the fabrication of the documents took place on his computer,” the Attorney General stated. “Him (Rowley) being a potential subject of investigation by the Integrity Commission itself, then why is the chairman meeting with him, when the Commission has not yet even been duly constituted?” Ramlogan said. “If this matter has to go any further, where is the integrity and the independence of any investigation, going to be?” the Attorney General asked.
The Attorney General said the meeting must give rise to grave public concern and grave public disquiet,” for several reasons:
1) The first had to be with the timing of the meeting, coming on the eve of the motion of no-confidence brought by Rowley in the Government “which was based on scandalous allegations about an alleged thread of e-mails which has been deemed a work of fiction and a fabrication”.
2) The Attorney General’s second concern arose out of the venue of the meeting. It took place at the personal residence of the chairman.
3) The third area of concern, he said, was the fact that there is no quorum. “This meeting is highly suspicious..because there is in fact no Integrity Commission,” he said. Under the Integrity in Public Life Act, a quorum for the Commission consists of a chairman or deputy chairman and at least two other members. “In the absence of a duly appointed Commission, what would be the point of meeting the chairman?” Ramlogan asked. “The Integrity in Public Life Act does not give the chairman any powers in his own right. Such powers are only vested in a duly constituted Commission. In the circumstances it is virtually impossible to imagine what lawful business Dr Rowley could have possibly had to discuss with the Chairman.
4) The fourth point raised by the Attorney General related to the procedure adopted by Rowley in seeking the meeting. Ramlogan said the established practice and procedure which governs the making of a complaint and enquiries to the Integrity Commission is via the office of the Registrar of the Commission. “You cannot arrogate onto yourself the right to visit the chairman at his home, or to be calling for him,” the Attorney General said, stressing that this undermines the independence of the process.
“What was the urgent matter that necessitated secret meeting over drinks at the home of the chairman of the Integrity Commission than Dr Rowley could not raise via the proper channels in a letter addressed to the Registrar of the Commission?” Ramlogan asked.
He added: “Let us reverse the roles: If it was Anand Ramlogan or PM who was calling the chairman of the Commission and meeting him at his home in the dead of night, then what pray tell would the population and the PNM have been saying?” He compared the Gordon/Rowley meeting to that of the meeting between former CJ Satnarine Sharma and Basdeo Panday. The Attorney General said the Gordon/Rowley meeting was worse. He pointed out that the latter did not take place at a home over drinks but rather at the office of the former Chief Justice with Panday passing through the normal system of the Hall of Justice. “And there was a grave public outcry from the population, especially from the PNM,” he said.
-
I doubted the veracity of these emails from the onset until the AG started essentially accusing Ken Gordon of conspiring with Rowley. Now I know something is up.
He's panicking. First the 'report' from his own IT staff now this. All of his pronouncements on the issue were meant to subvert any real investigation.
Why is Ramlogan imputing the motives of the police investigation in the first place.
Apart from that if these allegations were as scurrilous as he says wouldn't it do more damage to Rowley if Ramlogan maintained his silence while independent experts and investigators rubbished the claims.
-
Steups. Like dem have any idea of what improper and decent look like.
How did they know about this meeting anyhow? Who talk first? Or was it overheard?
But it obvious...cocoa in the sun...and clouds setting up.
-
Steups. Like dem have any idea of what improper and decent look like.
How did they know about this meeting anyhow? Who talk first? Or was it overheard?
But it obvious...cocoa in the sun...and clouds setting up.
They spying on everybody.
-
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/SENSITIVE-MATERIAL-211766231.html
‘SENSITIVE’ MATERIAL
PM safeguards classified information
By Renuka Singh
Story Created: Jun 16, 2013 at 10:03 PM ECT
Story Updated: Jun 16, 2013 at 11:13 PM ECT
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has expressed concerns that handing over her electronic devices to the police investigators may jeopardise national security and has since directed that the investigation only take place in her presence.
In a letter to lead investigator, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mervyn Richardson, dated June 10, Persad-Bissessar said in her capacity as chairman of the National Security Council there was “sensitive” information on her computer systems and she was advised by her attorney, Israel Khan SC, that they and her in-house information technology (IT) expert should all be present during the police investigation.
“There is sensitive data on the said electronic devices concerning the safety and security of the State and other matters of a confidential nature,” the Prime Minister said.
Persad-Bissessar has since directed police investigators to only examine the electronic devices that she used in the month of September last year.
“I will readily adhere to the request made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Mr Mervyn Richardson that I make available to the police investigators the electronic devices used by me to send and receive e-mails during the month of September 2012, but I am constrained to do so in the presence of my attorney-at-law and my information technology expert,” she said.
The PM said Khan was of the opinion that “this modus operandi of inspecting and examining the electronic devices will afford not only protection for the integrity of my electronic devices, but for the police investigation”.
“Such an exercise in Senior Counsel’s view will ensure that the inspection and examination of the said electronic devices remain transparent and above board for all concerned,” Persad-Bissessar said.
She also attached a copy of a report by US-based computer forensic expert, Jon Berryhill, which dissected the e-mail thread read by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley in Parliament last month and pronounced the e-mail addresses “fraudulent” and “poorly constructed”.
Richardson, in a telephone interview yesterday, confirmed the letter and said he would not be distracted by “other investigations”.
“I am running this investigation and I cannot talk about what others are doing. I would not be so presumptuous to say that this report would add any weight to my investigation,” Richardson said.
When asked if the Prime Minister was allowed to be present during his investigation, Richardson said he was “guided by Senior Counsel’s advice”.
“My Senior Counsel advice,” he added.
Richardson refused to comment on the state of the investigation or who had been interviewed.
“I could tell you that the investigations are moving ahead at full steam. We have spoken to several people involved in the matter already.”
-
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Rowley-calls-for-independent-investigation-211765661.html
Rowley calls for independent investigation
Story Created: Jun 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM ECT
Story Updated: Jun 16, 2013 at 11:13 PM ECT
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley yesterday reiterated his call for an independent investigation into the 31 e-mails he read in Parliament last month which allegedly implicated the Prime Minister and several key Government ministers in the Section 34 fiasco.
When told that a US-based computer forensics expert, Jon Berryhill, was retained by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s Senior Counsel and he had determined the e-mails to be “fraudulent”, Rowley once more called for an “independent” investigation.
“I am not paying any attention to output by interested parties,” he said in a telephone interview.
“When you retain someone, they are paid by you,” he added
Berryhill was retained by Persad-Bissessar’s attorney, Israel Khan SC, to debunk the thread of e-mails Rowley raised as the backbone of his no-confidence motion against the PM and her Government on May 20.
“I am more concerned with the corroborative aspect in the e-mails,” he said.
Rowley said several of the intentions raised in the e-mails circulated among Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Local Government, Works and Infrastructure Minister Suruj Rambachan actually took place within days of the time it was mentioned.
“I could come with an expert now to say that the e-mails is proof. That is why the investigation must be independent.”
He said this was reminiscent of former national security minister Jack Warner retaining three paid legal minds to poke holes in Concacaf’s Integrity Committee report.
Warner, on May 21, released a compilation of three legal opinions on the Concacaf findings that precipitated his exit from Government.
“The matter warrants an investigation that ought to be independent. This Government has made no attempt to give the country that,” he said.
Rowley said while he was not an investigator, he was satisfied that there was “enough corroboration” in the e-mails that it should have been brought to the public.
“Even with all this rah-rah, I will not be pushed away from the fact that it should have been raised.”
Rowley said while the Government could get experts to disprove the e-mails, they still needed to come clean on the contents and said there was corroborative evidence in the messages.
But Ramlogan yesterday dismissed the corroborative evidence.
“It is easy to craft e-mails now, today, around events that have already happened in the last six months and backdate fake e-mails as if they corroborate events that have already occurred,” Ramlogan said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Ramlogan described the issue as a “political plot” hatched by the Opposition and others to destabilise the Government.
Emailgate background
On May 20, 2013, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley launched a motion of no-confidence in Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her Government.
Rowley, speaking under Parliamentary privilege, read out 31 e-mails allegedly circulated among the Prime Minister, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Local Government, Works and Transport Minister Suruj Rambachan.
The e-mail thread was also purported to include communication to Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal and Captain Gary Griffith, national security advisor to the Prime Minister.
The e-mails, inter alia, allegedly implicated the senior Government officials in the Section 34 fiasco.
On May 22, at the close of the debate, House Speaker Wade Mark referred Rowley to the Privileges Committee.
Rowley has called for Moonilal to recuse himself from the Privileges Committee as he too was allegedly implicated in the e-mails, which Moonilal has since ignored.
Rowley attended one Privileges Committee meeting last Monday, which he described as “interesting” and is expected to face the panel for the second time today.
-
The more experts the government hires to prove the emails are fake the more I believe the content to represent the truth of what actually occurred.
It would make more sense to let it blow up in Rowley's face via a legitimate investigation than to keep releasing reports from private investigators.
-
The more experts the government hires to prove the emails are fake the more I believe the content to represent the truth of what actually occurred.
It would make more sense to let it blow up in Rowley's face via a legitimate investigation than to keep releasing reports from private investigators.
To me there is a concerted effort to pervert the investigative process, it is just simple logic that if you pay someone to produce something, then the expectation is that what is produced will favour the relevant paying party.
I thought Rowley set himself up initially as well but the fact that this is the meandering all over the place just lends creditability to what was produced and all that is being debated is the construct rather than the content of the messages.
-
I thought Rowley set himself up initially as well but the fact that this is the meandering all over the place just lends creditability to what was produced and all that is being debated is the construct rather than the content of the messages.
My sentiments exactly.......me thinks dey dost protest a tad much......
-
For innocent people they acting rel scared. How can the government hire they own investigator , how is that fair?
-
For innocent people they acting rel scared. How can the government hire they own investigator , how is that fair?
The only fair thing in T&T is my ass :rotfl:
I don't believe the concept of being fair or even natural justice exists here. If you list the scandals and controversies surrounding the PP govt in 3 years, you'll realise that there are no repercussions expected when the govt change. In many countries a political party would win the next election just by promising to prosecute the entire PP cabinet and their friends. Unfortunately, those same friends will be financing the next govt on the condition that certain matters are forgotten. And so it continues ...
-
Lawyers for AG, Suruj keep devices
Concerned about protocols...
Story Created: Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM ECT
(Story Updated: Jun 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM ECT )
Citing protocol concerns, the legal team representing both Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Local Government Minister Dr Suruj Rambachan yesterday refused to hand over their clients’ electronic equipment to the police.
Attorneys Larry Lalla and Pamela Elder SC met with Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson for over three hours yesterday at the Police Administration Building on Sackville Street, Port of Spain, but left with the equipment belonging to both Ramlogan and Rambachan in hand.
In a telephone interview yesterday, Lalla said a local information technology expert accom-
panied them to the meeting.
“We went to the Police Headquarters with the mobile devices and the computers of the two Cabinet members,” Lalla said.
“We had lengthy discussions concerning the handover of equipment, however, the police were unable to satisfy us as to the protocol that would be adopted once the equipment was left in their custody,” Lalla said.
Lalla said they did agree to continue communicating with Richardson and the investigating team, with a view to handing over the relevant equipment by the end of the week, “once they address the protocol concerns”.
Lalla did not want to divulge what those protocol concerns were but said both clients, Ramlogan and Rambachan, remained willing to assist with the ongoing investigation.
Richardson, in a telephone interview yesterday,confirmed the meeting with the legal team and also confirmed that they refused to leave the equipment.
“It was both technical and legal protocol concerns,” Richardson said in a telephone interview.
He said he believed that those concerns would be met by the end of the week.
-
AG has no trust in cops
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-06-27/ag-has-no-trust-cops
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is confident a compromise will be reached with police to allow for his cellphone and other electronic devices to be handed over soon to investigate the Section 34 e-mail matter. But he is insisting that only an international IT expert will be allowed to look at them because he is not confident the police will ensure the information remains confidential. In fact, he fears his confidential information might be leaked and used against him on a People’s National Movement platform. Ramlogan said so in response to questions from reporters during yesterday’s post-Cabinet news conference at the Prime Minister’s office in St Clair. “In the current climate there are current international best practices, protocols and procedures that must be followed in circumstances such as these,” he said.
He said his lawyer Pamela Elder, SC, had refused to hand over his devices on Tuesday because the proper arrangements were not in place for their safety and integrity. Once proper arrangements were put in place, the devices would be handed over, he said. But he insisted no local investigator will be allowed to look at the devices. “I have no difficulty [with] an international IT expert whose credibility and reputation are beyond reproach and question going through my stuff,” Ramlogan said. “The agreement is, that is the only person that can go through the equipment. I have no difficulty with that, but I have a serious problem with anybody else going through your business that contains anything and everything.” Ramlogan said his reason for adopting that stance was obvious. “We are all human beings and we have a private life, a personal life, but more than that, we have a professional life as a government minister. I am the AG of the country, I sit on the National Security Council.”
During the 2011 state of emergency, he said, he went on national television and invited citizens to e-mail and inbox him on Facebook their suggestions to fight crime. “A lot of that intelligence was presented by ordinary citizens and the spectrum is very wide—including inside the Police Service, outside the Police Service, drug blocks, et cetera.” Ramlogan said he had “to be very careful in my dealings with other countries, other international law-enforcement agencies, that the sanctity and confidentiality of those communications are not unwittingly compromised.”
He said he had a responsibility to ensure the identity and content of correspondence from those people were protected. He insisted: “If the Police Service selects an international IT expert whose reputation, credentials and credibility are beyond question, I will give them all the devices.”
Speaking on behalf of himself, the Prime Minister and Local Government and Works Minister Dr Suruj Rambachan, he said: “We are not suspects in any criminal investigation. We are in fact voluntarily co-operating with the police because we feel that we are the victims of a massive political fraud and conspiracy...we would like to get to the truth, so that the perpetrator of that political conspiracy and fraud can be caught, charged and prosecuted and that is why we are co-operating.” He said everyone had a right to privacy “and my right to privacy is not less because I am a government minister and nor will I wish it in any way to hinder an investigation.” Ramlogan said he was prepared to give the devices to the police but not in a carte-blanche manner without any rules and procedures that obtained internationally.
He explained: “There may be things on my system that pertains to the Police Service itself, pertaining to corrupt officers, corruption within the Police Service and so on. “So I have to be very careful. You don’t just use this as a window of opportunity to have somebody sitting down and going through all your business, only to perhaps get political ammunition to slip to the PNM, so it comes up on a political platform, or to have any police officer or any citizen suspected of being involved in criminal activity suddenly disappear from the scene.” He added: “It is not a very simple matter, it is a very complicated matter. It can be made very simple if the police have a defined and clear procedure and practice and protocol.” He said things had been made worse by the police failing to honour a promise to return the devices of Gary Griffith, national security adviser to the Prime Minister. Ramlogan said Griffith’s devices had been in the hands of the police for about a month. “That is unforgivable in the circumstances, when someone is voluntarily co-operating in a situation when they are not a suspect.”
-
dais ah whole heap a contradiction....yuh have nutten to hide but d pnm could use yuh info as ammunition ??? for what ....ent u jus is blanks dat shootin from dey.......... dem full ah shit......and will do all in their power to subvert any kind of proper investigation............we headin down ah slippery slope with these people.........
-
dais ah whole heap a contradiction....yuh have nutten to hide but d pnm could use yuh info as ammunition ??? for what ....ent u jus is blanks dat shootin from dey.......... dem full ah shit......and will do all in their power to subvert any kind of proper investigation............we headin down ah slippery slope with these people.........
Heading yuh say we slipping and slidding long long time.
-
Dale Enoch of I95.5 Fm interviews Richardson on-air re EMAIL-gate. Richardson reveals that contrary to media revelations, the Prime Minister has NOT handed over her devices. ONLY Gary Griffith's devices have been received todate.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10152976366085531
De man have a point. Next ting de man have some unique documents involving cases with Capra hircus or something and people get to know his line of defense and dem kinda ting.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152975803195531
-
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10152976366085531
De man have a point. Next ting de man have some unique documents involving cases with Capra hircus or something and people get to know his line of defense and dem kinda ting.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152975803195531
If I didn't know who Ramlogan was and didn't know a thing about the email scandal and I just saw this man talking, in 5 seconds I'd know he was lying. Its on his face and in his voice.
The lies are all intended to subvert the investigation and have this play out in the court of public opinion. It's backfiring bigtime. I was a cynic now I'm convinced.
-
If these emails were indeed fake why they waiting so long to hang Rowley? Why they avoiding so much. Something is not right at all. They not doing themselves any favours.
-
And a next ting.
If he worried about something coming out that could be used on a campaign trail.....if it have everything above board....and no underhand dealings happening...den..what can they use?
-
And a next ting.
If he worried about something coming out that could be used on a campaign trail.....if it have everything above board....and no underhand dealings happening...den..what can they use?
ENTTTT
-
Why don't they just keep their damn devices and simply contact Google and Microsoft and request the email traffic at the time and dates the alleged emails were sent? Then there is little risk of any security lapses. I believe there has to be a court order in the countries where Google and Microsoft are registered (I think one of them is in Eire) but as this is a T&T national security issue, I imagine the emails will be released.
-
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PM-VS-COPS-213723071.html
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has not handed over or left any of her electronic communication devices with the police.
This was confirmed yesterday by her attorney, Israel Khan SC, who said that no information was extracted from the Prime Minister’s computer or BlackBerry cellphone when she met with lead investigator in the emailgate probe, Deputy Commissioner of Police Mervyn Richardson, last Tuesday.
Khan put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Richardson, who Khan said reneged on an earlier agreement that the devices would be analysed and extraction of information would be limited to the month of September 2012.
In fact, in his letter to Khan dated June 20, Richardson said,” I acede to your request on the terms outlined,” that “investigators in this matter should only examine and inspect the electronic devices used by the Hon Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar SC for the month of Spetember 2012.”
He also agreed in his letter that the inspection of the electronic devices should be conducted in the presence of the Prime Minister, her IT expert and Khan.
September 2012 was the month in which 31 purported e-mails, related to the Section 34 fiasco, were alleged to have been exchanged between the Prime Minister, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Minister of Local Government Suruj Rambachan and National Security adviser Gary Griffith, conspiring to commit illegal acts.
“No, we did not leave anything with the police. I am sure you saw (the Prime Minister’s adviser) Barry Padarath leaving with the same box, which he came with,” (to the police station, Khan told the Sunday Express yesterday.
The box was said to contain the Prime Minister’s computer and electronic devices.
Khan said: “I had written to Richardson on behalf of my client stating clearly that the Prime Minister was willing to surrender all her devices for inspection, in front of her (Information Technology) expert, herself and her lawyer.
“I also indicated that the inspection and extraction would be confined to the period of when the alleged e-mails were sent in September 2012.
“The Deputy Commissioner of Police acknowledged and said he would accede to her request, but said we must not interfere with the procedure, so we went there to surrender these things for inspection but they told us they wanted to keep the devices, put them in an evidence bag and lock them up and after they were examined, they would send them back to us.”
Khan said he was shocked by this new turn of events.
“I intervened and I told the DCP I am flabbergasted. I told him this would be a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister to hand over these devices to you. I told him that she would be acting irresponsibly to do that because sensitive information involving the State and other sovereign powers are on her computer.
The Prime Minister also intervened and said that she had information on these devices with regard to regional and international matters and leaders such as (United States) President Barack Obama and the vice president of China.
“We said ‘NO! No! NO!’ Even the Prime Minister seemed disappointed and told the police that she wants this enquiry to come to a close. She also said she would give the undertaking that she would write to the providers and would waive her rights of privacy for the month of September.
Khan said Persad-Bissessar told the police, ‘I cannot leave my devices here’”.
“We never left the devices there. (Persad-Bissessar) took her BlackBerry and computer hard drive, everything. We said extract and copy it only for the month of September, but they said they are not doing that and they want everything,” Khan said.
“I reminded them that we are not here as suspects, but as witnesses to help solve this case. I reminded the that they can only keep the devices if they believe that a person is a suspect and that the devices had been used to do commit a criminal offence,” he added.
Khan says if in fact the Prime Minister is a suspect then the police don’t have to wait for any invitation but can raid Persad-Bissessar’s home and take the devices away from her.
Once the providers say there is truth in the “e-mails”, Khan said the police can then search, seize and arrest.
Khan asked: “How can they call big people, and watch us in our faces and change things just like that after they agreed not to seize their devices?
The Sunday Express asked Khan what was the next step for the Prime Minister
“Well, the police will have to agree that their IT expert will only extract information for the month of September,” he said.
Khan said that tomorrow a formal letter will be sent to Richardson taking issue with statements made in the media, purporting to have come from Richardson about the pace of the investigation.
-
E-MAILS FAKE
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/E-MAILS-FAKE-214558611.html
The e-mails are fake. Based on the documents before him, this statement has come from acting Commissioner of Police Stephen Williams on the 31 e-mails read by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley into the Hansard in Parliament on May 20.
“Those documents are purporting to be e-mails but they are not. They are fake,” he told the Express in an exclusive interview at Police Administration building in Port of Spain last Friday.
Pressed by the Express to explain this point, maintained that the e-mails were not authentic.
The authenticity of the e-mails and their content have been the subject of political posturing by the highest office-holders—Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and Rowley.
And other top office-holders have also been dragged into the “emailgate” probe, including chairman of the Integrity Commission Ken Gordon, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard and Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
Even the top cop’s ability and that of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) to properly investigate the matter have been the subject of public debate amidst the 46-day-old police probe.
The e-mails’ authenticity was only one facet of the police investigation.
While their authenticity was dismissed by Williams, their content—an alleged plot to cover up the Section 34 debacle; an attempt to bribe the DPP by using the Chief Justice to offer him the post of High Court judge; and an attempt to intimidate a reporter working on the Section 34 fall-out—was not. “But do those documents read by the Opposition Leader represent the content of e-mails or exchanges? That is what the police is looking into,” he noted.
The Express understands that the e-mails, in part, represent intercepted conversations between individuals involved in emailgate.
Williams chose not to comment on whether Rowley’s document could be intercepted information.
For now, he said, emailgate is not a criminal investigation, only a probe.
“There is no established criminal offence. A probe into the content of the e-mails should help us determine what offences, if any, were committed. If there was an offence, no probe would have been necessary and the police would have acted,” he explained.
In his view, the only legal authority to have conducted such a probe was the Police Service and not the Integrity Commission. He noted that very often the Integrity Commission refers matters to the TTPS for investigation. He further dismissed the suggestion that any foreign entity could have conducted an independent investigation on emailgate without the TTPS.
“That suggestion is so foolish and it’s coming from people who are supposed to be intelligent. I repeat, the only legal authority to investigate this matter is the TTPS,” said Williams.
Questioned on whether there could be a perceived conflict of interest in him investigating the Prime Minister and the Attorney General given that he sits in on meetings of the National Security Council (NSC) with them, Williams said he was not a member of the NSC.
When the Express pointed out that previous Commissioners Dwayne Gibbs and James Philbert were members of the NSC, Williams said he was often asked by the chairman of the NSC, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar, to brief the council, but he was not a member.
In his view, any concern about him being partisan to the People’s Partnership Government is misplaced.
He said in his 37-year career at the TTPS, he had never been affiliated to any party and would conduct his job with a level of integrity.
And if that meant putting high officers behind bars, if there was evidence, then so be it, he added.
Cognizant that the public was eager to learn the outcome of the emailgate probe and several other high-profile matters, Williams explained that bureaucracy was a necessary evil in the police business.
The onus on the TTPS, he said, was to do a thorough investigation and build airtight cases on all matters. Some matters, like the CLICO probe for instance, he explained, required more dexterity and specialised investigation.
He said Director of Public Prosecutions Gaspard only handed over the matter to the police in November 2012, almost three years after CLICO went belly up.
Another investigation, the alleged re-introduction of the “Flying Squad” by former minister of National Security Jack Warner, was being wrapped up by Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Simon Alexis, he said.
That matter was referred to the TTPS by Persad-Bissessar on March 1.
In the case of emailgate, Williams said the Government’s intervention by providing expert witness statements to the TTPS was “not an aid to us”.
At the end of the day, Williams explained that despite being furnished with expert opinions, the Police Service will do its own original work on the matter.
He deemed the exercises of the AG and Prime Minister in this regard as futile.
DCP Mervyn Richardson, who is investigating the e-mail matter, has dismissed the provision of expert IT pronouncements on the e-mails as a “sideshow”.
Williams maintained that a successful and timely probe into emailgate couldn’t take place without the cooperation of Persad-Bissessar, AG Ramlogan, national security adviser Gary Griffith, Local Government Minister Surujrattan Rambachan and Rowley.
He said the investigators would explore all facets and ensure that all service providers are targeted for information.
Asked if he felt the politicians’ pronouncements on the Police Service have affected the public perception of the TTPS and its ability to handle the matter, Williams was undaunted.
He noted that elections are won and lost on the issue of crime in T&T.
“The single biggest issue for the TTPS is the public perception to police and crime. There is no overnight fix for us. We will have to earn the public trust and regain public confidence in order for us to progress,” he said.
But Williams, who was last week appointed by the Police Service Commission (PSC) to act for another six months as Commissioner, said politicians’ statements on the police were simply for political gain.
He explained that if crime statistics were high, they were used by the Opposition to flog the Government. Conversely, when crime statistics were favourable, they were used by the Government of the day to bolster support.
“If the government changes, it would just be the flipside. The political statements are based on which side of the divide you stand,” said Williams.
He noted that the public formed an opinion on the entire Police Service if a police officer, for instance, is charged with stealing a gun or if a police officer if charged with rape.
He said it was critical to get rid of the “bad eggs”.
At the moment, he said, he was reviewing how to work within the system to remove bad eggs. Williams suggested that the challenge to keep officers straight was a simple case of money.
“Money can play a very influential part when someone is in need of money. We need to move officers up to the middle class, like Margaret Thatcher did in the UK, so that temptation is not there. Further, once there is an attractive remuneration package we are able to attract better talent and we can improve overall standards of the TTPS. My vision is for a professional Police Service,” he said.
-
Every time Williams open his beak we know why Patos eh give he d wuk. No comment when ask bout d Flying Squad investigation but he knows d email are fake.
-
Volney' s confession sparks mass cynicism
Scepticism over about-turn on Section 34: (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Volney-s-confession-sparks-mass-cynicism-260208911.html)
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: May 21, 2014 at 11:01 PM ECT (T&T Express)
There is something fishy about former justice minister Herbert Volney’s sudden confession and acceptance of blame for the Section 34 fiasco and the question is whether he struck a deal to change his tune.
This was the feedback yesterday on Volney’s surprise move to publicly apologise to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, who he said had nothing to do with the debacle. Volney and Ramlogan have also agreed to settle for an undisclosed sum a defamation lawsuit which the AG had brought against Volney for statements made about the AG and section 34 .
This was disclosed at a news conference at the AG’s office on Tuesday.
Volney said, as former justice minister, he helped calibrate Section 34, had it amended it in the Senate and also proclaimed.
He said it was an oversight on his part and did not know of its fallout whereby United National Congress (UNC) financiers such as Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson and others who have cases against them more than ten years old would have escaped liability.
Government moved swiftly to repeal Section 34 following a public furore and Volney was fired.
Since then, Volney was highly critical of the Government and the AG, saying he was made the fall guy.
A year and a half later he is now saying he was the main culprit and the AG had no role in the controversy.
However, the view yesterday was that Volney’s story just does not add up and gives the perception that he sold out.
The following are some of the responses compiled by the Express:
Former national security minister Jack Warner: “I was surprised that Mr Volney fell in that trap, I was surprised that Mr Volney allowed the AG to manipulate him, I was surprised that Mr Volney believes he can hoodwink an entire nation.
“I am surprised that Mr Volney thinks the AG and the PP (People’s Partnership) are capable of keeping their word, because they are not.”
Warner said that no minister can send a bill to the President for proclamation and for Volney to now say he did it all was “utter rubbish”.
“Mr Volney has been consistently critical of the AG in the past and if he think this will help to whitewash the AG, well the AG will need much more than that, he needs a whole new dispensation, a new janum (life) to help him,” said Warner.
Warner said Volney’s confession has done the AG more harm because this tactic has only angered the people further.
He said this move was an attempt to soften the “charade’’ — the People’s Partnership anniversary celebrations in Chaguanas on Saturday but ‘bussing’ CEPEP and URP employees to the venue will not help change the minds of the people.
Warner added that this was the first time he has seen one of the partners (UNC) in the Partnership being advertised for the anniversary event and questioned where were the others.
He said, come Friday, his party, the Independent Liberal Party (ILP), will be out in full force to march against the Government.
Oilfields Workers Trade Union (OWTU) head Ancel Roget said the feedback on the ground was that Volney was bought out.
“That is a clear set-up!” said Roget.
He said in mobilising people to attend tomorrow’s march, the consensus was that something was amiss.
“They are desperate for their own political survival....this goes further to show that they are taking the people for fools and they are insulting with impunity the intelligence of the people, but the people are no fools,” said Roget.
He said no one was taking Volney’s acceptance of blame seriously and in fact this move has generated more questions than answers.
Roget said Volney’s actions were also an attempt to defuse the heat from the AG and to try and change the conversation and calls for him to be removed from office.
He questioned whether the police should investigate Volney on the heels of his statements.
“If the former justice minister now admitting to a crime and, if that is the case, the police should take action because that is certainly perverting the course of justice,” said Roget.
Former prime minister Basdeo Panday said people have been telling him that Volney sold out.
“The perception of a lot of people is that some deal has taken place, I don’t know whether this is so but it is very fishy and strange at this point in time that he could come and accept full blame,” said Panday.
“What bothers me very very much, and I echo the sentiments of Dr Rowley, is that this man was a judge and what this proves is that there must be something wrong with the system by which judges are selected because this person really should have never been a judge,” said Panday.
Panday said the timing of Volney’s admission of guilt was also convenient “having regard to the fact that some celebration is coming up, they are celebrating 24 years of my party”.
Congress of the People (COP) member Vernon De Lima said he was “stunned” by Volney’s about-turn and said it was frightening that he (Volney) served at the Supreme Court.
“That is a disgrace, I was so upset, as a senior member of the bar, that kind of behaviour was unbecoming of a judge. He was a judge of the Supreme Court, and when a judge says something his word is his bond,” said De Lima.
“This whole country is still stunned over the passing of Dana Seetahal who was just gunned down by cowards...and now this,” he added.
De Lima said right now senior people need to start acting responsibly as they are moulding the minds of young children.
He said the various controversies stemming from the AG’s office were also worrying and expressed disappointment that his party, the COP, remains silent.
“What does the COP stand for? They stand for nothing,” said De Lima.
Political analyst Winford James said Volney’s statements create suspicion and questioned why did he not accept blame up front, one and a half years ago.
“It creates a lot of suspicion because Mr Volney has been saying one thing after the other and there is very little credibility in his statement,” said James.
He noted that Volney was very critical of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar for placing the blame on him and firing him and now his about-turn has vindicated her actions.
“We have to take what he says with a grain of salt because we never know what is going on behind the scenes. I think it is an opportunistic statement because he was the one who has been calling for the AG’s resignation and now he has turned around and vindicated the AG and the Prime Minister,” said James.
-
AG mum on whether he asked PCA director to not file witness statement in Section 34 case in exchange for post
By ANIKA GUMBS CCN Senior Multimedia Investigative Journalist
AG DUCKS
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has refused to confirm or deny an allegation that six days before attorney David West was appointed director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), he asked him to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation lawsuit relating to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected for the job.
The defamation lawsuit stemmed from statements Ramlogan claimed Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley made during a news conference on November 8, 2011, relating to Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh’s ruling in which he quashed the Attorney General’s decision to order the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh arising out of the Piarco International Airport enquiry.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has not responded to a text message sent to her by the Sunday Express on Friday for comment on the matter.
A high-ranking Government official, however, told the Sunday Express that upon receiving the text message, Persad-Bissessar expressed “alarm” over the matter and demanded answers.
West is the former head of the Central Authority Unit (CAU) that falls under the purview of the office of the Attorney General.
Ramlogan has not directly answered if it is true he telephoned West and requested his witness statement be withdrawn.
He has neither confirmed nor denied contacting West. And, in an e-mailed response to the Sunday Express at 7.49 p.m. on Friday, Ramlogan wrote: “As you have indicated, Mr West is a witness in a case I have brought against Dr Rowley which is pending before the High Court.
“It would not be proper for me to comment in the circumstances. Suffice it to say, the director of the PCA is selected and appointed by the President in his wisdom and not the Attorney General.”
The following question was sent to Ramlogan by the Sunday Express: Investigations revealed that on October 31, 2014, you telephoned attorney David West asking him to withdraw his witness statement in relation to extradition matter involving Steve Ferguson and Ish Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected as director of the PCA. Is this true? If so, why was this done?
But while the questions remain unanswered, Sunday Express investigations have revealed that the AG 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 (October 31).
Ramlogan had telephoned West earlier on the morning of October 31, informing him 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.
Section 6 (1) of the PCA Act states the authority is to comprise a director and deputy director to be appointed by the President of T&T on the advice of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The Sunday Express learned both Persad-Bissessar and Rowley had agreed West was the best candidate to head the PCA, and as a result his name was submitted to the President for him to be selected for the post.
West seeks legal advice
Immediately following the telephone conversation with Ramlogan, West sought legal advice about the request for the witness statement in the defamation matter to be withdrawn, the Sunday Express learned.
West, who was appointed director of the PCA on November 7, however, filed his witness statement at the Hall of Justice on December 19, 2014, a copy of which has been obtained by the Sunday Express.
West’s phone logs show the Attorney General attempted to contact him twice on December 16—three days before the witness statement was filed.
The calls went unanswered.
At the time, West was in Tobago and again sought legal advice.
Contacted on January 22 for comment on the information obtained by the Sunday Express, West said: “The matter is before the court and I cannot comment.”
The West witness statement
In his witness statement, West details a June 2010 incident surrounding the arrest of Ferguson and Galbaransingh.
An excerpt from West’s witness statement reads: “The application for special leave was dismissed by the Privy Council on June 7, 2010, on the ground that they (Ferguson and Galbaransingh) did not have a right of appeal.
“As was customary, I advised Inspector Williams, who was the complainant in the extradition matter, to arrest Ferguson and Galbaransingh since their bail had now ceased.
“The Government had by then changed, with the claimant being appointed Attorney General in May 2010. I advised the Attorney General of my instruction to Inspector Williams. The Attorney General asked me how I could issue that instruction without telling him; he advised me that only he could make the request to the police.
“He then instructed me to rescind my instruction, which I did. As a result, Ferguson and Galbaransingh were not immediately arrested; this occurred on June 15, 2010, approximately one week after the said decision of the Privy Council.”
West also recalled an instance where attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon who was retained to lead him (West) for the Attorney General in the extradition matter did not object to bail being granted to Ferguson and Galbaransingh.
“To my surprise, at the hearing Ramkissoon again took the novel and different position of neutrality on the issue of bail; he informed the judge (Justice Malcolm Holdip) that we were there to assist the court with the principles of bail.
“I informed Ramkissoon that it was standard practice of the CAU to object to bail; consequent to the discussion which occurred between Ramkissoon and myself, I understood that he was acting on instructions from the Attorney General.
“The judge, however, refused bail. After the hearing the Attorney General had a conversation with me and instructed me not to get involved in the Piarco extradition matter again,” West wrote.
West, however, said notwithstanding the instruction, he continued to pay attention and follow the progress of the Piarco extradition matter.
His statement continued: “On or around October 8, 2010, some two and half months after the Privy Council refused special leave to appeal on the habeas corpus application, the Attorney General issued the warrant for the return of Ferguson and Galbaransingh to the United States.
“I also observed, from my reading the daily newspapers around that time that the Attorney General also issued a press release.
“I was surprised at the timing of the press release given that from my said experience with the CAU, the invariable practice has been to issue any such press release after the extradition was completed, not before, that is to say after the fugitive had been removed from the jurisdiction of T&T.”
On Ramlogan’s decision not to appeal Justice Boodoosingh’s ruling, West wrote:
“From my reading of the judge’s decision, I observed that at paragraph 135 of his judgment, the judge stated that the Attorney General had not advanced any evidence to suggest that there existed a settled practice of discontinuing local charges if the fugitive is extradited.
“I am able to say from my said experience of working in the CAU that the DPP has in the past agreed in extradition matters to the discontinuation of local charges so that the extradition could proceed and that evidence of that practice exists among the records of the unit.”
Why Ramlogan didn’t appeal Boodoosingh’s ruling
Ramlogan had come under fire from several quarters for his decision not to appeal the ruling.
But he gave reasons for his decision in his 55-page witness statement that has also been obtained by the Sunday Express.
An excerpt from his statement reads: “When the judgment was delivered, I sought and obtained legal advice as to whether I should appeal the decision of the court.
“Based on the advice which I received I did not do so.
“However, my decision in not doing so was not only predicated or guided by the advice which I received. I took into consideration a number of matters and spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on the issue of having Ferguson and Galbaransingh tried in T&T and how soon this could be done.”
He further added: “In fact, I recall meeting with the DPP on two occasions relative to this matter. The first was when I received the representations made by Ferguson and Galbaransingh.
“I also met with him on a second occasion before I decided whether or not to surrender Galbaransingh and Ferguson. I wanted to determine the exact status of the proceedings in the preliminary enquiry.
“After discussions with the DPP, I formed the distinct impression that the outstanding preliminary enquiry was extremely near in completion.”
Ramlogan said in deciding whether to appeal the ruling, he considered his (Boodoosingh’s) judicial declaration the forum for the trial of Ferguson and Galbaransingh was T&T.
The Attorney General said judicial statements made by Court of Appeal Judges Wendell Kangaloo and Allan Mendonca were also given consideration.
“I therefore considered that when the indictment of these people is laid by the DPP, there can be a special court (such as the type done for trial of Dole Chadee and others at Chaguaramas in 1996) and that where possible, the Attorney General would assist in facilitating resources for this purpose,” Ramlogan said.
Rowley stands firm
Meanwhile, Rowley is standing firm by his position that Ramlogan had not sought or advanced the public interest in the conduct of the legal proceedings involving Ferguson and Galbaransingh.
In his witness statement, Rowley said his concerns were based on the Attorney General’s legal team representing the interest of the State and his handling and defence of the extradition order.
“I therefore considered it my duty and responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to inform the public what the claimant was required to do as Attorney General in dealing with the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh, and that, as Attorney General he was ultimately accountable for the loss which the State suffered in those legal proceedings because of the way that he had handled the extradition matter,” an excerpt from his witness statement read.
-
Our PM actually appointed a criminal as our AG. If folks in T&T don't realize that by now then they are only getting what they deserve for their blind stupidity.
-
AG breaks silence on alleged witness tampering; denies asking PCA director to withdraw statement
By Anna Ramdass (Express).
“The truth will set me free”.
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday categorically denied that he asked chairman of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation case the AG filed against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley.
He said further, that if this was the case, West, if he received legal advice, would have reported this to the Integrity Commission and the police instead of remaining silent.
The Sunday Express reported that the AG refused to confirm or deny an allegation that six days before attorney West was appointed PCA director, he asked him to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation lawsuit relating to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected for the job.
The defamation lawsuit stemmed from statements Ramlogan claimed Rowley made during a news conference on November 8, 2011, relating to Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh’s ruling in which he quashed the Attorney General’s decision to order the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh, arising out of the Piarco International Airport enquiry.
On the heels of the Sunday Express report, the Congress of the People (COP) political leader Prakash Ramadhar issued a release yesterday stating he has summoned an extraordinary meeting of the party executive to discuss the matter.
Fixin’ T&T also issued a release calling on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to fire the AG and for the police to launch a criminal investigation.
Ramlogan initially refused to answer to the allegation but broke his silence yesterday on the matter to clear the air, he said.
He explained that the question that was sent to him via email from the Express which read “Investigations revealed that on October 31, 2014 you telephoned attorney David West asking him to withdraw his witness statement in relation to the extradition matter involving Steve Ferguson and Ish Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected as director of the Police Complaints Authority. Is this true? If so, why was this done?”.
Ramlogan said while he was and remained reluctant to comment on a matter in which he is the claimant that is awaiting trial before the High Court, “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 which allegedly took place on October 31st, 2014 or at any time thereafter.”
Ramlogan e-mailed the Express a copy of West’s witness statement which was filed in the court on December 19, 2014 according to the court stamp on the document.
West’s witness statement was served to the AG’s attorneys on December 22, 2014 which is penned on the document.
The AG told the Express he was only aware of West’s witness statement on December 22, 2014 and therefore could not have asked him to withdraw something he knew nothing about in October as alleged.
The AG said if he tried to bribe West in October 2014 as alleged, then West had full opportunity to include these allegations in his witness statement which was filed in December 2014. West had signed the statement on June 27, 2014.
“I was only aware that Mr West had filed a witness statement in this case when it was served on my Attorneys on December 22nd, 2014. The said witness statement had in fact been filed in court a mere two days before,” he said.
“It is impossible for me to have asked Mr West on October 31, 2014 to withdraw a witness statement which only came into existence almost two months later. I could not have possibly asked Mr West to not give evidence against me in favour of Dr Rowley’s defence in exchange for him being appointed Chairman of the PCA as this appointment is made by the President of the country and not the AG,” he added.
The AG said this was similar to the allegation in the fraudulent emailgate where it is alleged that he was going to remove the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) by appointing him a judge.
Ramlogan said that power lies with the Judicial and Legal Services Commission which is chaired by the Chief Justice and he could not possibly make such an offer, far less a promise, that he was powerless to deliver.
He noted that the allegation with respect to him asking West to withdraw his witness statement was being raised almost three months after the alleged conversation and two months after West was appointed PCA chairman.
He said further that “carefully selected parts” of the evidence in his case that were published do not tell the entire story.
“At trial, the truth will emerge under cross-examination and set me free. I pray and wait in hope for the judiciary to give me my day in court so that justice can be done. I am confident that the truth will set me free,” he said.
Ramlogan also indicated he was extremely concerned that a newspaper can claim to have gained access to a citizen’s private phone records.
He reminded that the provisions of the Interception of Private Communications Act makes it a criminal offence to intercept private communications.
Ramlogan said law enforcement agencies are allowed to do this with proper authorisation.
“We must not sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of political or journalistic expediency,” said Ramlogan.
-
I wish West had recorded the alleged conversation...
-
I wish West had recorded the alleged conversation...
:beermug:
-
Did AG overstep bounds?
By ANDRE BAGOO (Newsday).
Tuesday, January 27 2015
DID ATTORNEY General Anand Ramlogan overstep any legal or constitutional authority in relation to his administration of the extradition case involving reported UNC party financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson on the question of bail?
That is a legal matter that has arisen in a defamation lawsuit brought by Ramlogan against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley. The issue arises due to an affidavit filed in the case, on Rowley’s behalf by David West, the former head of the Central Authority – the unit under the Ministry of the Attorney General which administers extradition – last December.
The affidavit states that the men’s bail in relation to pending court matters ran up to a judgment dated June 7, 2010. When this bail was up, West says, the men should have been re-arrested. However, he said, he received instructions from AG Ramlogan to rescind an instruction for the men to be re-arrested.
At the same time, another affidavit in the same case states the opposite. The affidavit of James Lewis QC – dated June 23, 2014 – states the men were re-arrested and denied bail for almost a year and that the Attorney General consistently resisted applications for bail.
West in his affidavit states, “The Court of Appeal ordered bail to continue pending the determination of an application for special leave to appeal from their decision to the Privy Council.”
West continues, “The application for special leave was dismissed by the Privy Council on June 7, 2010 on the ground that they did not have a right of appeal. As was customary, I advised Inspector Williams, who was the complainant in the extradition matter, to arrest Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh since their bail had now ceased.”
West says, “The Government had by then changed, with the claimant being appointed Attorney General in May 2010. I advised the Attorney General Mr Anand Ramlogan (the Claimant herein), of my instruction to Inspector Williams.”
West, now the director of the Police Complaints Authority, says, “The Attorney General (the Claimant herein) asked me how I could issue that instruction without telling him.
He advised me that only he could make the request to the police. He then instructed me to rescind my instruction, which I did. As a result, Mr Ferguson and Mr Galbaransingh were not immediately arrested. This occurred on June 15, 2010, approximately one week after the said decision of the Privy Council.”
The statement also raises questions of law and practice in relation to extraditions in general, practices which are normally cloaked in secrecy.
However, another affidavit in the same case, this time filed by James Lewis QC on behalf of AG Ramlogan, sets out a time-line which suggests the AG had, in fact, at one point called for the men to be denied bail.
A time-line given by Lewis in his affidavit, dated June 23, 2014, states, “On June 11, 2010, the Extradition Defendants wrote to the AG requesting continuation of bail under existing conditions until proceedings were completed. The AG refused.”
The affidavit, obtained by Newsday, further states, “On the June 15, 2010 the Extradition Defendants were arrested and taken into custody consequential upon the dismissal by the Judicial Committee of their appeal. On the June 16, 2010 the Extradition Defendants applied for bail before Kokaram J. The AG opposed bail. Bail was refused.” Further, “On the July 6, 2010 the application for bail renewed. Heard by Holdip, J. The AG opposed bail. On July 14, 2010 Holdip J. refused bail.” The document further states, “On the December 21, 2010 further application for bail before Mon Desir J. Bail refused.”
It was only in 2011 – almost a full year after the events in West’s affidavit – that bail was granted. “On the March 31, 2011 a further bail application was made and Boodoosingh, J. granted bail,” according to Lewis.
West yesterday issued a media statement saying he stood by this statement. Newsday yesterday asked Ramlogan to respond to the claims in West’s affidavit. The Attorney General – who is the titular head of the Bar – said the matter was before the court and that would be the forum in which he will deal with the claims.
“I intend to deal will all allegations in this matter in court,” Ramlogan said. “And I do not intend to have trial in and by the media as opposed to trial in a court of law. Mr West has made certain allegations which are for judicial determination.
As Dr Rowley is quite aware, it is highly improper for either of us to make prejudicial comments about the statement.”
Asked if he would file a supplemental statement to respond to West’s claims, Ramlogan said, “There will be a case management hearing at which those matters will be dealt with.”
Asked if he would take legal action in relation to a report which stated he had done certain things prior to West’s recent appointment as PCA director by the President, Ramlogan said he would not.
-
WEST HEADS TO DPP
...to file statement on AG’s alleged witness tampering
By Anika Gumbs CCN Senior Multimedia Investigative Journalist
Director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) David West has prepared a statement to hand over to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC.
The statement, the Express learned last night, provides details on the allegation that six days before his appointment as PCA director, he was asked by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan to withdraw his witness statement in a defamation lawsuit relating to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh, in exchange for him being selected for the job.
The statement is expected to be handed over to the DPP before the end of the week.
The move by West comes amid mounting calls for him to speak out on the matter, among them from Political Leader of the Congress of the People (COP), Prakash Ramadhar and Fixin’ T&T.
West is the former head of the Central Authority Unit that falls under the purview of the office of the Attorney General.
The defamation lawsuit in which West is a witness stemmed from statements Ramlogan claimed Rowley made during a news conference on November 8, 2011, relating to Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh’s ruling in which he quashed the Attorney General’s decision to order the extradition of Ferguson and Galbaransingh, arising out of the Piarco International Airport enquiry.
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.”
TOP COP TO MAKE STATEMENT
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.
CNC3 News last night reported Acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams as saying he will soon make a statement on calls for an investigation.
He said the allegation has been receiving his attention but he does not wish to say just yet whether or not a probe would commence. Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj on Tuesday called on Williams to launch an investigation into the matter.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12573813_10153766544769333_5640798748100610717_n.jpg?oh=fbc5f1f957f28b010fba395c255f528d&oe=5730746B)
-
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.