Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
16 cycles wrote:rfari wrote:16 cycles wrote:this was a plan for everybody with skeletons in the court to wipe them clean....
Epic Backfire......
nobody to blame etc etc......
awaits next scandal....
U's a cont orwha? Nobody to blame? I drink that kool-aid that the ag mix last night? Dotish person u are.16 cycles wrote:this was a plan for everybody with skeletons in the court to wipe them clean....
pnm and unc had this planning long time - bill was started in pnm tenure...then unc took it and ran...16 cycles wrote:Epic Backfire......
plan backfired and everybody hadda save face..16 cycles wrote:nobody to blame etc etc......
PP take on it.....play it off as a foresight etc etc....pnm ain't give a valid reason yet why they were formulating this during last tenure...rfari wrote:U's a cont orwha? Nobody to blame? I drink that kool-aid that the ag mix last night? Dotish person u are.
leaving that alone.........ask for clarity for a post if you don't understand....
rfari wrote:I cyar believe you. Is common knowledge that the opposition only agreed to give the bill the requisite majority on the agreement that certain institutions and procedures are put in place at a certain time. Pp get the vote, take out the section tht pertains to their corruption accused colleagues and send it by max to get it ascended. So for you to say that the opposition and the government in cahoots on this one, I can't see it with all the information that is in the public domain so far. So my question to you still stands.
16 cycles wrote:16 cycles wrote:this was a plan for everybody with skeletons in the court to wipe them clean....
pnm and unc had this planning long time - bill was started in pnm tenure...then unc took it and ran...
Habit7 wrote:
The Bill first drafted by the PNM sought to remove the Preliminary Inquiry of certain charges thereby speeding up the judicial process.
16 cycles wrote:rfari wrote:I cyar believe you. Is common knowledge that the opposition only agreed to give the bill the requisite majority on the agreement that certain institutions and procedures are put in place at a certain time. Pp get the vote, take out the section tht pertains to their corruption accused colleagues and send it by max to get it ascended. So for you to say that the opposition and the government in cahoots on this one, I can't see it with all the information that is in the public domain so far. So my question to you still stands.
never said they in cahoots....everybody seeking their own interests - everyone have their own skeletons before the court.....
opposition relying on this government to do things correctly is the same as saying....yeah fellas....do allyuh thing....putting it in a way for you to understand...who is the 'cont' that gonna believe the government will follow proper procedure and agree to what they said????
rfari wrote:Bwahahahhahahahah!!!! Aye. U srs dawg? These sort of arrangements have been done in the past with no fiasco like this. U exhibiting primary school thinking dan
16 cycles wrote:rfari wrote:Bwahahahhahahahah!!!! Aye. U srs dawg? These sort of arrangements have been done in the past with no fiasco like this. U exhibiting primary school thinking dan
which government exhibits the most fiascos to date???
allyuh moving like a battered spouse....'this time they telling the truth'....'this time i trust them'....'they love meh'......
Politics
Po= poor people
li - lies
tics - blood sucking creatures
politics....blood sucking creatures lying to poor people....
16 cycles wrote:Habit7 wrote:The Bill first drafted by the PNM sought to remove the Preliminary Inquiry of certain charges thereby speeding up the judicial process.
which charges fell under the bill when in pilot stage?
VOLNEY DID IT
Justice Minister took note to Cabinet for bad law to be proclaimed early
IT was Justice Minister Herbert Volney who brought a note to Cabinet which sought the early proclamation of certain sections of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.
The Sunday Express learnt that in August the lengthy note was brought to Cabinet and it dealt with the proclamation of the Act in its entirety.
However, the Sunday Express was told that "neatly tucked into that note was the early proclamation of Section 34".
"It was not flagged for the attention of Cabinet as the note primarily dealt with the proclamation of the whole Act. It was very inconspicuous," said a Cabinet source.
It was also Volney, Cabinet sources confirmed to the Sunday Express, who forwarded the note for early proclamation as he was the minister who brought the bill to Parliament.
On September 2, the Sunday Express exclusively reported on the proclamation of certain sections of the Act that came into force on August 31.
The passage of Section 34 meant that a judge could dismiss a matter if it had languished in the court for more than ten years.
The Act, which subsequently became law, allowed two financiers of the United National Congress (UNC)—Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson—to apply to the country's courts to have their matters dismissed.
The possibility of Galbaransingh and Ferguson walking free from this country's courts was condemned by the United States Government which issued a statement last week, saying it was still seeking to extradite the businessmen to face its country's courts.
But in a swift action, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar convened Parliament in emergency session last week to repeal the Act.
Last Friday, President George Maxwell Richards signed the proclamation order repealing Section 34.
Other people and entities who sought to have their matters dismissed were former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, Ameer Edoo, Maritime Life General Insurance Co Ltd executives John Henry Smith and Barbara Gomes; Maritime Finance; Northern Construction Ltd; Fidelity Finance Leasing Company Ltd; and former government ministers Carlos John and Russell Huggins.
John was Volney's campaign manager in his successful bid for the St Joseph seat for the UNC in the May 2010 general election.
Earlier last week Volney admitted that he met with Galbaransingh two Saturdays ago during a retreat which his ministry held at the Galbaransingh-owned Grafton Beach Resort in Tobago after Opposition MP Colm Imbert raised the issue in Parliament.
Yesterday, Volney blamed the failure of Galbaransingh and Ferguson to be tried in the country's courts, on the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard to file an indictment.
He told the Sunday Express in a brief telephone interview early yesterday that the DPP's office had from December last year to August 28 to file an indictment but failed to do so.
"Why are all these old matters not being indicted? There is no oversight over the DPP. He's the man to prosecute. Unless he identifies a case to be brought up, it sits in abeyance," he said.
In Volney's view, both Galbaransingh and Ferguson have already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
"What has the DPP done to ensure that they get a fair trail?" he asked.
Volney believes last week's repeal did not address "historic cases" and these are matters which the DPP sits on.
"That's where Section 34 would have come in. Submissions could have been made to clear the backlog. As a former judge, I have knowledge of this. Few people can do the job I do. I know it. I have done it," he said.
Questioned on his thoughts about calls for his resignation, Volney observed that he was a sitting MP and he served at the prerogative of the Prime Minister.
"I don't see that there is a groundswell of opposition. I think the public perception is that the Parliament overlooked the possible repercussions of a good, well intentioned law, but mindful of the opposition it was repealed," he said.
Volney could not be reached later yesterday for comment on his action to take the note to Cabinet for the early proclamation of the Act.
Asked to comment on whether the DPP was at fault, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday told the Sunday Express the DPP has explained his role and he was satisfied with it.
And DPP Gaspard, who has expressed concern over the proclamation, declined further comment yesterday on Volney's view about him.
He was content to confine his statement to that made on Section 34.
The DPP had stated it was not his intent to forgo prosecution in the Piarco 1 case.
However, because there was an overlap of defendants with Piarco 2, and there was obvious oppression and impossibility in having them before the High Court on indictment while the preliminary enquiry was ongoing, he had opted instead to have one joint trial to save judicial time and abridge costs.
Ramlogan explained that Section 34 was proclaimed earlier than the entire Act because it was a logical precursor.
"Once the law was passed, you needed to trim the body of cases that would have been going to the High Court. It was specifically to trim the fat in the courts so that pending cases can be advanced," he told the Sunday Express.
rspann wrote:POLY-many
TICKS-bloodsuckers
POLITICS-many bloodsuckers.
I think our constitution should be amended so that each party gets only five years so that they could get equal time to thief.The problem is that they all do the same thing,but when one goes out of power,they start getting on like if we forgot what they did when they were there,and start playing innocent and fight to get back in power,both of them PNM and UNC.
Despite the repeal of the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, Independent Senator Elton Prescott SC believes those who have made applications under the Act will still walk free.
His view is also shared by Opposition senator Faris al-Rawi.
Among the applicants for freedom are financiers of the United National Congress (UNC), Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson.
"It is my view that those applicants under the now repealed Section 34 are going to challenge the constitutionality of the repealed legislation and it is my view that they will do so successfully," said Prescott.
The normally reserved Prescott prefaced his comments by stating he was "not going to protect myself today."
He was speaking at a forum titled "Section 34: Dealing with the Issues" hosted by the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) at the University of the West Indies in St Augustine yesterday.
Panellists at the forum which became heated at times were Prescott, Al-Rawi, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal and UWI lecturer Bishnu Ragoonath.
Other people and entities who have sought to have their corruption matters dismissed under Section 34 are former finance minister Brian Kuei Tung, Ameer Edoo, Maritime Life General Insurance Co Ltd executives John Henry Smith and Barbara Gomes; Maritime Finance; Northern Construction Ltd; Fidelity Finance Leasing Company Ltd; and former government ministers Carlos John and Russell Huggins.
Prescott said that the applicants would win in any court.
"The Court of Appeal will say it is repugnant to have introduced this repeal. These men have made an application under the old law, they will say it is unconstitutionally interfering with our powers, we are going to look at the application to discharge. And if the appeal should go further to the highest court they themselves might express the view that it is ad hominem legislation, it is retrospective, it is a regrettable incursion into the judicial sphere, it is unconstitutional, it undermines the separation of powers. We cannot uphold this piece of legislation," he stated.
"So back the applicants come five years later or three years later—we have won our cases in all of the courts—you cannot use this repealed legislation to take away the right that we have to have a trial, fair trial.And then the argument starts, can we have a fair trial?" he added.
Prescott, along with four other Independent Senators did not vote for the repeal of Section 34 in Parliament last month. The controversial section would have allowed accused persons with charges more than ten years old whose trial had not yet started to walk free.
"It is my view that we were doing the wrong thing and it is not going to stand scrutiny," he said of that decision.
Further, he pointed out that the amendment to the act did not say why the act was repealed.
"The law does not tell us what its purpose is," he noted.
"We had permitted a number of people to take advantage of the law who ought not to have been given that right and we were setting out to take away those rights," he observed.
Al-Rawi said: "The horse has bolted. The constitutionality of the repealed legislation is going to be challenged. There is risk of ad hominem (directed to the man) debate prevailing. It speaks to whether legislation is going to be held to be unconstitutional for running afoul of the separation of powers principle in telling the judiciary that it must do something. The important subset of that is whether you are directing a law to affect certain people only."
Al-Rawi said that during the Parliament debate, irresponsible statements were made by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, the former minister of justice Herbert Volney and Sport Minister Anil Roberts. He said the did not adhere to the sub judice rule in the Parliament chambers and all spoke to a theory of exculcation and of a theory of conspiracy against certain gentlemen.
"Those very Hansard debates are going to be used by the courts of this land and elsewhere to argue that the repealing legislation is ad hominem cause it was designed to affect those people," he said.
Both Prescott and al Rawi disagreed with a statement made by acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith that the legislation was "flawed."
They agree that the law was a good law and in long in coming.
However, while Al-Rawi took issue with the early proclamation of the act against assurances given to the Opposition in Parliament, Prescott argued that it encroached on the rights of the judiciary.
He said it is the business of the court to interpret the law.
He explained that Section 34 gave the judge a right discharge an applicant and "judges would have judicial discretion".
Chief Whip Dr Roodal Moonilal said that he believed that the issue was migrating from an issue of governance to a competitive political issue. About the firing of the minister of justice, Moonilal said the issue of individual responsibility came before collective responsibility.
He said while errors have been made, the Government has acted responsibly in its handling of the matter.
rfari wrote:Nice. The party about to start. And ppl still believing the ag in spreading the blame
De Dragon wrote:rfari wrote:Nice. The party about to start. And ppl still believing the ag in spreading the blame
Metro B#2,(Banzai is # 1 ), yuh hadda be pretty facking dotish Opposition to support something with a promise from a bunch you cnnot trust as far as you can throw........
rfari wrote:De Dragon wrote:rfari wrote:Nice. The party about to start. And ppl still believing the ag in spreading the blame
Metro B#2,(Banzai is # 1 ), yuh hadda be pretty facking dotish Opposition to support something with a promise from a bunch you cnnot trust as far as you can throw........
I'm insulted by that eh. Srs hurt feelings dey.
In hindsight, the decision for the opposition to support the government would look dumb but parliament wouldn't make much progress if both sides don't trust each other. If that's the case, important legislation can't get requisite majority and parliament would be a big dollyhouse session. What the pp administration has done is unprecedented but hopefully wouldn't be the norm. Now thinking about it, volney was on a suicide mission.
pugboy wrote:country might riot if they go free
S_2NR wrote:pugboy wrote:country might riot if they go free
Trinis? Riot? Hahahahahaha. Funny
De Dragon wrote:rfari wrote:De Dragon wrote:rfari wrote:Nice. The party about to start. And ppl still believing the ag in spreading the blame
Metro B#2,(Banzai is # 1 ), yuh hadda be pretty facking dotish Opposition to support something with a promise from a bunch you cnnot trust as far as you can throw........
I'm insulted by that eh. Srs hurt feelings dey.
In hindsight, the decision for the opposition to support the government would look dumb but parliament wouldn't make much progress if both sides don't trust each other. If that's the case, important legislation can't get requisite majority and parliament would be a big dollyhouse session. What the pp administration has done is unprecedented but hopefully wouldn't be the norm. Now thinking about it, volney was on a suicide mission.
And a Bill with the implications that this one carried I would think you'd want to publicize the fact that you provisionally agreed to it. Call a press conference or something you know? Or is it that the Bill was pencil whipped all the way through?
pugboy wrote:they just might if the seed is planted correctly
rfari wrote:pugboy wrote:they just might if the seed is planted correctly
It would just take one person to jump off and start somethin'. Trinidad fast approaching fertile grounds for anarchy
rfari wrote:pugboy wrote:they just might if the seed is planted correctly
It would just take one person to jump off and start somethin'. Trinidad fast approaching fertile grounds for anarchy
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests