A politician and his word

A politician has earned the reputation of someone not to be trusted, they will say anything aimed at winning you over but will do the exact opposite. Is this reputation justified? Well in too many instances, it is. Take for example the recent controversy regarding the early proclamation of “Section 34”.

Make no mistake, the real issue regarding this bill is the sudden proclamation of particular sections. Why was this done? What was the intention behind this if not to protect party financiers? Was it to give effect to the bill to speed up the justice system, to clear the backlog, as was intended? But why just one section when the entire bill sort to deal with this? One justification put forward for proclamation of just parts of the bill was that this is normal, it is normal for bills to be proclaimed in part as "things are put in place", meaning all the infrastructure have been put in place for the proper functioning of the legislation. But, has this been done? Where are the rules?

I sincerely want to unconditionally apologise to Panday. Yes, that's what I said, no need to read it again. Why?

Ok, you seem unable to understand why, even after that spectacle that passed as debate aimed at explaining a wrong and attempting to correcting it. I will explain.Whilst Panday was still an MP, although with diminishing support, he held strong in his stance on legislation support. Panday vowed to not support any legislation the then Government brings to the house unless and until certain demands were addressed. He had called for constitutional reform back then and until that process begins he will not support any legislation and he stuck by it. He was determined to get what he wanted, he never trusted the then Government. And for that I want to apologise. I want to apologise because I have condemned him daily because I thought he was just being obstructive. I was very outraged at his behaviour as I have always advocated for Parliamentarians to work together for the benefit of the citizens. I want to apologise because it has become evident that he was right not to trust his opponents as did the present opposition regarding the promise by the Government to not proclaim this bill until everything was put in place. But the government abused this trust and went ahead and proclaimed selected sections.

The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, 2011. was debated in both houses and passed unanimously in both houses. The Government had agreed with the Opposition to not proclaim the legislation before all was in place for the proper functioning of said legislation. But the Government, [secretly] went ahead and proclaimed parts of the bill which, according to claims from many quarters, would see cases against well known party financiers dropped. Was this the intention of the Government? Who knows. What the Government needs to do is explain why this was done unless those claims are true.

However, after listening to part of the debate yesterday as the Government scrambled to right their wrong [cover up what seems to be an attempt to protect party financiers], I am convinced that politicians can never be trusted [but I always knew this]. First off, I want to say that ALL Member of Parliament are to blame for this. But let's separate the blame, they all must accept responsibility for what has been described [by several experts] as a badly written clause. There were issues regarding the rules which were not present but this bill was however supported by all MPs. In that sense, they must all accept responsibility. Regarding the proclamation of sections of the bill, this is where blame must be placed solely at the feet of the present Government. My non-expert opinion on this law is that it was good law, it’s just that it was not complete, hence the hold on proclamation.

The Congress of the People (COP) put out a release labelling this sordid affair as "The Saga of s34 – Blunders or Manipulation of Parliament". They had this to say:

The Proclamation by the President on the day of the Jubilee Anniversary of the Independence of Trinidad and Tobago and the subsequent application to a High Court Judge by Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Fergusson to have criminal proceedings against them brought to a halt have raised the grave questions about the bona fides of the government or parts of it in this entire affair. This situation is cause for the most serious concern and alarm.

and called for the following:

1. That the repeal must be done in such a way as to eliminate the attempt to utilise the section be stopped, whether by retroactive effect or other legislative means2. That the government, or anyone acting on its behalf, do nothing to prevent any future attempt to have those indicted in the US in relation to the Airport matters extradited to face the charges there.3. That no amendments to Bills be introduced in the Parliament by government on the floor and without express prior consideration thereof by the appropriate governmental body.4. That any person found to have acted with mala fides in these developments be not allowed any function on behalf of the government of Trinidad and Tobago.

The above says a lot to those who can hear it.

The DPP subsequently issues a statement on this also, this is what he had to say:

On Independence Day, section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was brought into force. Curiously, no other substantive provision of this Act has been brought into force even though the declared legislative thrust of this Act is the abolition of preliminary enquiries. Section 34 (1) cannot stand on its own without absurdity, while 34(2) and 34(3) have nothing to do with any such abolition.

In fact, 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.

After about ten hours of debate, well not debate but rather ten hours of rum shop banter, we are nowhere close to having a proper understanding of why this proclamation was done. Instead of accepting responsibility, the government went all over the place talking about PNM corruption, illegal parking, Landate, Clader Hart, Montiel, Clico, and on and on and on. Not one word about why this was done and in whose interest.

Therefore, I am publicly apologising to Basdeo Panday for condemning him as he took a stand against broken promises by holding back support unless certain things are done. I know now this is the best one can do considering the type of politics and politicians we elect.

Panday, I'm sorry..... STAND TALL!!!