Thursday September 9th, 2010
- Last update:4 min 12 sec ago
Football
Cricket
Ambiguity in law being corrected
Published: 2 Mar 2010
I have taken note of a letter from Edmund Gall, who is apparently living in England, complaining about the amendments that are being made to the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act.
Gall is aggrieved because the Government is seeking to remove the ambiguity that currently exists in the law with respect to identification marks on vehicles, in particular the identification marks used on vehicles owned by the Office of the Prime Minister. However, Gall is wrong in every respect and these overseas letter writers need to get their facts straight before rushing to print.
In the first place, contrary to Gall’s erroneous assertions, the Act does not authorise the President to use the coat of arms on his official vehicles. Instead, all the Act does, at Clause 16, is exempt the President from the requirement for identification marks on his vehicles and there is no reference whatsoever to the coat of arms in the Act. The reality is that the use of the coat of arms is authorised by the Minister of National Security under the National Emblems Act, a completely different piece of legislation. Gall is clearly also unaware of the fact that in 1997, under a previous Government, the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act was changed to give the minister with responsibility for transport the authority to approve the procedures for registration of vehicles. The requirement for licensing of vehicles was abolished at the same time and changes were also made to the requirements for identification marks on vehicles.
As a result, since 1997, the Transport Minister has been empowered to authorise new procedures for the registration of vehicles. However, the necessary changes were not made to the regulations, thus creating a conflict between the primary legislation (the Act) and the subsidiary legislation (the regulations). This is the ambiguity that we are now correcting.
Colm Imbert
Minister of Works and Transport
While Govt has empowered the
While Govt has empowered the Transport Ministry to authorize new procedures for the registration of vehicles they should have done the necessary changes to the regulations as well. It's their negligence which actually created this conflict between the primary legislation (the Act) and the subsidiary legislation (the regulations). lawyers in Louisville
Min. Imbert was right to
Min. Imbert was right to correct me. However, I'm not the only one who needs to be corrected, and he hasn't addressed the substantive issue(s). I've replied to this, but suspect the length of my response won't get it printed - see my full response at: http://www.knowtnt.com/node/108
When will we trinis get it
When will we trinis get it through our thick heads that Napolean and/or any of his cabinet colleagues are never wrong. Despite the fact the he has to sing for his supper, this man is never wrong. Perhaps someone can point me to one incident for which he accepted responsibility. He's is a jackass in his own right. And what did Eric say about the jackass? Let 'im bray; it's good for his ego. As for Martin Joseph, SWOTT/SWATT (whatever their name) is still operating illegally as he is yet to bring legislation to parliament, altough he promises each year to do so. So the coat of arms is a joke. This is in no way trying to dismiss the issue of its significance being used by the pastor. Ah wonder if he go put it on the bus when he start to drive bus? Perhaps he could put it on the church 'in the bush.'
The Prime Minister's vehicle
The Prime Minister's vehicle did contravene the law. There ought to be no question about that, or any further clarity needed.
Section 16 (1) of the Motor Vehicles and Road traffic Act clearly gives the exemptions to having a vehicle registered.
16. (1) The following classes of motor vehicles shall be exempted from the need for registration:
(a) new motor vehicles in the possession of manufacturers or dealers in motor vehicles, but subject to such provisions as to dealers’ general licences as may appear hereinafter;
(b) private motor cars and motor cycles brought into Trinidad and Tobago by visitors for their own use for a period not exceeding three months subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;
(c) any motor vehicle the property of or used by the President for his official or personal duties.
16.1(c) clearly shows that any exemption from registration is only for the President not the Prime Minister.
Granted, the Act does not indicate that the President is allowed to use the Coat of Arms, but... it does show the Prime Minister was NOT allowed to use the Coat of Arms... more specifically, his vehicle was one to be registered as prescribed in law... his vehicle was registered as PBM 1... a clear breach of the law to remove the registration and drive around without it.
So Gall was actually right when he said "So it appeared to common thinking that those responsible for the Prime Minister's fleet of vehicles contravened the law, and the Prime Minister appeared happy to be transported in that vehicle despite the questions over its legality. How does this get rectified? Rather than remove the coat of arms from PBM 1, the Government seeks to change the law."
Common thinking or not, there was a breach of the law taking place, and to remedy it, the law was changed...
Another point to note as I quoted from the NEA... a licence is required for the use of the Coat of Arms... was that licence received or even applied for?
Jumbie's Watch
Whilst I am no supporter of
Whilst I am no supporter of Mr Imbert, on this occasion - having checked the leglislation for myself - I am compelled by logic to conclude that he is correct.
Mr Gall in his letter of 01 March 2010 in the Guardian and elsewhere on the Internet on 25th Febuary 2010, said "The old Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, Chapter 48:50, says that only the President has the authority to use the coat of arms on official vehicles." - this is factually incorrect as Mr Imbert points out.
Mr Gall went on, " So it appeared to common thinking that those responsible for the Prime Minister’s fleet of vehicles contravened the law, and the Prime Minister appeared happy to be transported in that vehicle despite the questions over its legality." - and that is all that it is - 'common thinking' - as distinct from 'clear thinking'. Had Mr Gall apprised himself of the wording of the Act, only by some innate defect of intellect could he be excused of his brand of 'thinking'.
The substance of Mr Imbert's statement " The reality is that the use of the coat of arms is authorised by the Minister of National Security under the National Emblems Act, a completely different piece of legislation.", when referenced against the spirit and intendment of the NEA.
Mr Imbert's point - as I see it - is that persons seemingly from abroad should take greater caution in how they interpret situations, and fully inform themselves of all relevant law and regulations, before making assertions. That point is demonstrated and accepted.
So it takes 13 years between
So it takes 13 years between changing an Act and changing the regulations to reflect the Act?
By the way, can Martin Joseph (or Imbert) produce the licence or the application for the licence from the Office of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, as required by the National Emblems Act to use the Coat of Arms as a number plate?
5. (1) The Minister may grant to a person who makes an application in accordance with subsection (3) a licence to do any one or more of the following things:
(a) to use or display the Coat of Arms in connection with business, trade, profession or calling or with the activities of any body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate;
(b) to sell or offer for sale any articles, goods or things which represent or on which is reproduced or represented the Coat of Arms.
(2) A licence granted by the Minister may contain such terms and conditions as the Minister may think fit and may at any time be revoked or varied by the Minister.
(3) An application for a licence shall be in writing and shall contain such information as the Minister may from time to time require.
I sure we goh see ah licence turn up now dat ah mention it.
Jumbie's Watch
Colm should also know that
Colm should also know that the Coat of Arms is the highest symbol of our emblems and should only be used by the President who is the Head of State. Manning is not our President.
To hand out the Coat of Arms to ever Tom,Dick and Manning is to degenerate the use of our national symbols. At least,let's keep these symbols of our democracy sacred.
Colm, obviously you have
Colm, obviously you have something against Trinidadians living overseas and writing to you. Is it that these people do not exist anymore?, but there are lots of TT residents who may say the same things through lack of knowledge but you dont hit them up as hard as you do a foreign resident Trinidadian.
Now tell me: do you have the sole power to approve things or is it after Parliament and Cabinet gives you the aye or nay? You see Colm, writers and observers do realise that ministers are taking it on themselves to approve things, like no protocols or systems exist, like loose cannons as obviously PM is not in control and we are running around in cabinet imitating headless chickens, spilling redherrings left right and centre to take the heat of issues that are really important.
You guys are obviously messing up Trinidad and Tobago and you are our servants. The sooner we get rid of you all the better for Trinidad and Tobago.
Why can't you people stop
Why can't you people stop attacking my short pardner?
I am fed up and tired of everyone, especially foreigners, taking pot shots at us little people.
We do not have "short man syndrome" as is often inferred by many of you out there.
http://dsaltsman.blogspot.com/
Mr Imbert you are correct.
Mr Imbert you are correct. But not only overseas writer should get their facts correct, so should locals.
It's hard to get facts right when the government of which you are a part refuses to disclose the most basic info to the people who entrusted you with the authority and the power to serve them.
You seem to be more concerned with correcting on-line mistakes than you are with correcting mistakes of your administration, for example, putting up massive structures while basic needs are not being met. You cancel renovation of San Fernando General while your administration proposes to build more sporting facilities.
I guess you believe that if the population plays more sports they won't need to use the hospitals.
LOL!
LOL!