Postby grad » September 16th, 2014, 8:57 am
New letter to Kublalsingh. (first one was retracted)
Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh
Kerria Drive
La Florrisante
D'Abadie
Trinidad
URGENT
Dear Sir,
Re: Notice of Hunger Strike
I act on behalf of the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, who has been passed your letter dated the 3rd September 2014, written to the Honorable Prime Minister, for reply.
As you are well aware, being one of the litigants in C.V. 2012-03205 as well as the de facto leader of the Highway Re-Route Movement, another party to the aforementioned litigation, many if not all of the issues that you have raised in your letter are presently engaging the attention of the High Court.
You and the members of your movement have invoked the original jurisdiction of the High Court under section 14 of the Constitution seeking constitutional protection of the Court against claimed quia time alleged breaches of your constitutional rights. The Attorney General is representing the interest of the State in this matter. Both parties are being represented by eminent Senior members of the Inner Bar. Substantial resources have been devoted by both parties and more importantly the Court to allow this matter to be determined. Having invoked the jurisdiction of the Court for the determination of whether the State has breached your rights, adherence to the Rule of Law and the Constitution would require that the parties to the dispute abide by the decision of the Court while this matter remains pending.
As you have indicated in your letter your movement holds one view regarding the manner and route of the construction of the extension of the Highway. There are many other residents who hold an opposing view of the same facts. It would not be right for either party to seek to unilaterally circumvent the determination of the issues before the Court by attempting to find a solution to the issues that satisfies only one category of the persons affected by the construction of the Highway. Adopting such a course would not only be unfair and unreasonable but may amount to a contempt of Court.
Therefore, the State cannot in these circumstances accede to any such request. If it is that you and the persons that you lead wish to now seek a non legal solution to the issues over which you have raised concerns, it would be a condition precedent to adoption of any such course that the High Court matter, which you are pursuing, be withdrawn.
The High Court has ruled that your movement is not entitled to injunctive relief in this matter. The finding of the High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. You sought relief from the Court of Appeal that your appeal of the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee be deemed urgent and this application was refused. At each stage that you and your movement have been unsuccessful orders for costs have been made against you and no proposal or attempt has been made to determine how these orders will be satisfied by you and those that follow you.
You have made several claims in your letter which are factually as well as legally inaccurate, I shall set out these and correct your allegations seriatim. You make reference to your four arrests in trying to bring public attention to your plight. I wish to draw your attention to the dicta of Justice of Appeal Narine in Civil Appeal No. P142 of 2014 in commenting upon your behavior while seeking redress in the Court. His Lordship stated,
"The courts must always be vigilant in its protection of the rule of law and must be uncompromising in its insistence that the rule of law must be observed. While the courts will always protect the citizen's right to engage in lawful protest in defence of his constitutional or private rights, where the protest crosses the line into unlawful activity, the court must be careful not to condone such conduct This is particularly important in the prevailing social climate in which there has been a noticeable erosion of respect for and observance of the rule of law. In this case, what troubles the court even more, is the fact that the unlawful acts outlined in the Labate affidavit took place after the constitutional motion had been filed, and the matter was placed before the court".
This represents a complete judicial reproach of your allegations.
At page 4 of your letter you make certain bold allegations of the findings of the High Court in relation to the actions of the Honorable Prime Minister and the government. With respect to these allegations I reply by quoting the words of Justice of Appeal Narine in the aforementioned appeal where His Lordship at paragraph 28 of his Judgment set aside the said findings you refer to in your letter. His Lordship stated:
"Not having embarked on a full hearing of the substantive issues in the case involving possible cross-examination, a close analysis of the evidence and the full assistance of counsel on both sides with respect to the evidence and the relevant law, it is quite wrong for a trial judge to make final findings at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, in so far as the matters set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 reflect final findings of fact, mixed fact and law, these findings are set aside. In doing so, we express the hope that the trial judge will revisit these findings with an open mind at the hearing of the substantive issues."
Your attempt to seek to rely upon the findings of the High Court, being fully aware that those findings were overturned, by the cross appeal of the Respondent being allowed is quite disingenuous and deceitful. The Court of Appeal expressly directed that the High Court revisit the findings upon which you rely in your letter.
You make several statements about the Armstrong report. Much of what you rely upon in your letter amounts to self-serving opinion of your impression of the facts surrounding this issue. On the 18th September 2013 you sought permission in the constitutional motion before Justice Aboud to amend the Fixed Date Claim Form to include the events surrounding the appointment of the Armstrong Committee and the delivery of their report. The issues surrounding the Armstrong report are now the subject of new relief, which you seek before the Court. Dr. Kublalsingh, you cannot approbate and reprobate when you are before the Court. You have chosen to invoke the powers of the Court and the State is prepared to abide by the determination of the Court in this matter. The issues of which you claim regarding the Armstrong Report and the actions of the State in relation to same must now be determined by the Court as a result of your actions. The State has been compelled to defend all the allegations that you have made in relation to this report before the Court. This has been an expensive exercise funded by taxpayers and it cannot be right for the State to simply abandon the process invoked by none other than yourself. The Court will determine the effect of the Armstrong Report and the legality of the actions of the State subsequent to the completion of same.
You final two paragraphs of your letter express your intention to commence another hunger strike to highlight your plight. As you accurately set out in your letter such action would lead to consequences and risks, which are unknown. However you do so at your own peril. While you have the right to protest in a lawful manner the State has the duty and responsibility to protect life and will not be deterred in carrying adhering to that responsibility as it has done in the past. The State is prepared to abide by the law in this matter and will not be persuaded by and actions of a man who seeks sympathy and empathy from the population in support of his cause. Should the State adopt such a cause it would lead only to anarchy and tyranny and compromise the Rule of Law and the democracy, which we as a people have grown to enjoy and protect.
In those circumstances I trust that you will understand that the State cannot accede to your requests and I have all confidence that you will do what is right in the circumstances for yourself and the country.
Please be guided accordingly.
Yours respectfully,
Petal Alexander
/f/ Chief State Solicitor
c.c Mr. Anil V. Maraj, Attorney at Law.
The thing is how the one man who don't want to move for the highway( i think its Balliram Siew who the hrm has made their poster boy) is surrounded by no one, as everybody else who had to move, took their compensation and moved. I think where his house is, is where the penal interchange will be.
