Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:8 hours 46 min ago
Jeremie comes out fighting...
Law body under fire
Published: 24 Sep 2009
Attorney General John Jeremie has fired shots at the Law Association of T&T in defence of Prime Minister Patrick Manning and a retired judge on various recent issues—including alleging that the association’s president spoke “a lie” in one matter. Issuing the salvoes during yesterday’s debate of the 2010 budget in the Senate, Jeremie—without calling names—said: “I must note the remarks made by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago president attacking a retired judge of Appeal who stated the orthodox position on the inability of an inferior court to use an affidavit which had been struck out in those proceedings.” “I am the Attorney General, I am used to attack. But when the president of our Law Association speaks a lie, I am obliged to call him out,” Jeremie declared, without naming Law Association president Martin Daly. Jeremie devoted the majority of his budget contribution to replying on issues which have created tensions between the Government and the Law Association all year.
Among them, the PM’s veto of candidates for the post of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the matter of Justice Rajendra Narine’s submission to the DPP and police—for investigation—of an affidavit by Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr. Bakr’s affidavit had alleged that a deal had been made between his group and the PNM. The document was struck out of local and international court deliberations on issues between Government and the Muslimeen. Jeremie’s first shot was issued on the matter of the Prime Minister’s veto right in the appointment of chief legal officers, including the DPP, Solicitor General and Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Jeremie said the PM, as head of the executive, was given a role in the Constitution, in determining whether any persons should occupy these offices Stating that this was a common-sense provision empowered by the Constitution, Jeremie added, “Before members of the public seek to condemn, as the president of the Law Association has sought to so, the exercise of this power, we should all be cognisant of the fact that there should be a presumption that the Prime Minister will not act capriciously in making appointments to executive posts, in particular to key executive positions.”
Jeremie revealed that he had encountered a chief legal officer who had hid an opinion done by a Queen’s Counsel retained by him. That opinion advised on the laying of a criminal charge in respect of prominent people in the society, Jeremie said. Jeremie said the officer commissioned the opinion at state expense, but hid it, choosing not to consult with the AG on the matter “for reasons best known to himself.” “A copy of that opinion has recently been passed to me by its author and has been relayed to me by the present holder of the post,” Jeremie added. Jeremie said the single error by that legal officer “might well have cost the state a billion dollars.” He said quantification of the damage was being assessed and steps to be pursued were being worked out by people hired at great state expense. He said if the Prime Minister had concerns about a person who was to fill a post of chief legal officer, the PM had a right to exercise a veto. “The significance of this disclosure is to demonstrate that the Prime Minister, as head of the executive, had a right and a corresponding duty under the constitutional and legitimate authority to determine who the chief legal officers in the state’s executive branch should be,” Jeremie said.
“Having said that, I condemn the irresponsible and convenient statements by the president of the Law Association last week who made remarks in opposition to the basic right of the Prime Minister as is established in the Constitution. “The Law Association president was reported to have predicted that had the veto been challenged it would have been successfully so. “This is the leader of an association which speaks for 2,500 lawyers, flying in the face of the express terms set out in the Constitution and before the Privy Council has had a say in this matter on two cases now pending before it.” While agreeing that the posts of chief legal officers should be filled quickly, Jeremie said: “These are pivotal posts. This country faces a crisis again of considerable proportions from white-collar crime perhaps more complex and greater than any we have faced in the past—now more than ever courage is needed in all executive positions.”
Jeremie then proceeded to comment on remarks made by the association’s president against a retired Judge of Appeal who had commented on the Muslimeen affidavit. Jeremie agreed with the retired judge that the affidavit cannot be used by the judge in defiance of an order of a superior court. He said he also sought expert advice from two distinguished Caribbean experts. Jeremie cited the opinion of Dr Lloyd Barnett which also advised against use of the affidavit. Jeremie said: “The president of the Law Association in its haste to embarrass the retired judge which had the temerity to support the well-known position publicly and in support of the Attorney General,referred to a case which is almost 100 years old, Jones vs Trinder. “Dr Barnett concluded his opinion by saying it was right for Justice Narine to be criticised for his actions,” he said. “I will write to the Law Association in the hope that they will cease to act in automatic opposition to the executive. I say no more on this matter at this time.” Jeremie, concluding his contribution said: “The law is not my faith, it is my profession. The law association is not my fellowship: it is a brotherhood with all the connotations that go with that. No judge is my god: they are my equals.”
Dr barnett’s opinion
“Where a court orders an affidavit to be removed from the record on the grounds that it is scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, the effect is to destroy or nullify the public or official records of the statements contained in the affidavit. “Any reference to the affidavit in the same or related proceedings is improper. In fact it is the duty of the registry to destroy the affidavit because it should no longer be referred to in the pending proceedings.”
Would someone just remind
Would someone just remind Jeremie that NO ONE is above the law and he should let the matter take it's own course in the courts. I don't see why he has to be the mouthpiece for Tom, Tim, Dicky and Harry.
Look here, time to show the
Look here, time to show the general public the game and the reality of this PNM government.
Now UNC and COP look at this one, the AG want to talk, Manning where are you sir, I have a question for you.
I was on face book talking to the PNM supporters group that have posted several statements on face book directed to Trinidad and Tobago citizens, now sir bear in mind your group has 400+ members, Now sir I want you as the leader of my country, to tell me if Ryan4Party has representation in Trinidad and Tobago? I want to know sir if I am afforded the same rights as fellow citizens because I support no specific political view, I want to know sir if I am allowed answers to my questions, Do you think sir it is right to threaten a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago with responses like “I know who you are”, and up to now no answers?
So is the minister of finance coming on to a public forum to answer the questions of the people?
Chat 2
Patrick ManningSupporter is preparing for an online interview with the Minister of Finance. What would you like to ask Mme Minister?
about an hour ago • Comment • Like
Uncnothing Yet
How there is no provision in the budget to address prisons.
about an hour ago • Delete
Robert Parris
Just because something is not stated in a particular budget it does not mean that it is not an issue that will be addressed via the allocations to that specific Ministry.
A budget is not a wish list and really is a continuity of the state of development set forth by the particular administration. That being said there has been a continued effort ... Read More
49 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
I am talking about the building of a new prison and upgrading of the old, or you call the jail on Fredrick Street the provisions.
47 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
When are we going to deal with TSTT issue, we want this over.
46 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Why is the government spending the tax payer’s money to fight the tax payers?
45 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Why is the minister of finance still supporting UDeCOTT after all that have been brought into the public forum, if it was a man on the street, he before the court.
44 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Why has hart not been charged?
44 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
No I agree with you. To me I think that, that jail in the middle of the Countries capital should not be there at all it's a reflection of our Colonial past. Nevertheless I know that there are plans to update the Arouca prison and re build the Tobago prison.
43 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
How can the government allow a President that cannot even deal with simple issues, and has left the country hanging?
42 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Since this is our country and Manning is working for us, why is it he set to build Alutrint, he using the people tax money to fight the people, why he don’t open other industries?
40 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Robert look I have one real question for you man to man, we done have so much crime, killing, etc, when we cut the budget to the Justice system, what going to happen, we have a back log already, so boss how we dealing with the fall out?
38 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
why does the opposition provide no suggestions to the issues that they highlight? Don't you think they have a civic duty to the electorate that elected them to serve in the nations Parliament?
37 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
look i am not the opposition, I can only represent myself Ryan4Party, the reason I ask you the question man to man.
36 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
what real with that, because the crime and killing have no party, we country suffering, i am not playing, I ask you a real question because you say you know your thing.
35 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
Look we know who you are, and really in politics you have to take a position especially if you are questioning the administration. Personally this is my opinion to play it safe and stay on the fence is a disservice to your self. It will only appear as if you are just complaining for complaining.
We are quite aware of who you are and your ... Read More
31 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
last time i show my position on issues you block me, not you ask for questions, I am asking questions, I don't care if you know who i am or not. so you are saying your original question is what a joke!
28 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
Read what i said. I responded on the prison question. I think if you go back you will see my views on this.
26 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
I don't have to take a position, I am a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, that is my position.
25 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
how about the other questions.
25 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
ok. like it or not EVERYTHING is based on politics and political views. Even that last statement.
24 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
can you say the PNM government support your answer, because it is not an answer, just another fumble.
24 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
you are wrong, the government represents the citizens and not only supporters of political parties alone.
23 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
??? Look stop being so close minded and read what people write. You have a political opinion and we respect that, but you must equally be respectful of other peoples opposing views. THAT IS POLITICS.
22 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
But there are no other views on this post and this is what we are talking about. come on be a man answer some questions.
20 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
you mean they looking on at you fumble around the questions with no answers.
19 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
so come bring it Ryan4Party is here for you to say what you want, lets see who know what.
19 minutes ago • Delete
Robert Parris
ok talk. YOU LIKE TO TALK. GO AHEAD. TALK. I going to sleep by the way.
16 minutes ago
Uncnothing Yet
oh, so you playing politics with my childrens lives
15 minutes ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
you have 400+ friends and not one of them can give poor Ryan4Party an answer.
3 minutes ago • Delete
Chat 1
Patrick ManningSupporter is preparing for an online interview with the Minister of Finance. What would you like to ask Mme Minister?
3 hours ago • Comment • Unlike
You and 2 others like this.
Richard Robes
Why didn't she give the recycling industry a boost, Trinidad is lame for that sort of thing.
3 hours ago
Dane S.G Wilson
recycling I like that suggestion.
3 hours ago
DrKanye Best
well I guess that y this country needs input from ppl like. No Minister or government will ever have all the answers
2 hours ago
Uncnothing Yet
I want to know if she coming clean with the CL Financial deal!
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
I want to know how the minister expects Pensioners to pay for their property tax.
These people can even live on the money they get.
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
And when they can’t pay it is the government going to take their homes?
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
when she can answer that, let me know, I have some more questions.
2 hours ago • Delete
Dane S.G Wilson
Why don't you suggest something? Look Richard suggested something. All you do is criticize! You add nothing! Just be irrelevant!
2 hours ago
Uncnothing Yet
I want to know how she expects to deal with the Crime after she cut the budget to the Justice System, How is the justice system going to function.
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
And since National Security get most of the money, is National Security going to deal with the crime and support the justice system!
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Dane you stated in your post ask any questions, I am asking questions, I am not taking low shots, I am asking real questions, so Y are you telling me to suggest something now and not ask questions.
2 hours ago • Delete
Dane S.G Wilson
I said that? Lets try reading first before we talk. You put forward 3 worthy questions. Very good
2 hours ago
Uncnothing Yet
now if I get some answers I got 97 more questions.
2 hours ago • Delete
Dane S.G Wilson
Only? Then things cant be that bad then
2 hours ago
Uncnothing Yet
Dane I only going to ask the Minister real questions, the same questions that on the people mind, I am not play with you.
2 hours ago • Delete
Uncnothing Yet
Tell them to come Debate this with a regular citizen, bring Imbert next and the AG after, tell them come answer some questions for the people, or they frighten to have a debate with average citizen on face book? I want 100 questions and real answers for each one of them.
2 hours ago • Delete
Dane S.G Wilson
Come on facebook and debate? Right! Maybe the energy minister might entertain your request.... Have a good night
2 hours ago
Ryan4Party@live.com
Now Guardian I link this one back to every thing you can take off the voice of a citizen!
Mr. Rowley, sir, I believe
Mr. Rowley, sir, I believe that the pnm will always be there and pnm and only one other party will always be there, sir please SIR, put a hand, tell ken we need him back, we want his voice. We cannot deal with Manning. Sir you show me I don’t have to deal with it and I will be represented by the people, here I am now. Where are you sir. I will deal with you over Manning and Hart.
....JJ's skills as an attack
....JJ's skills as an attack dog defender of the indefensible has made him a valuable tool to Patos....he does not however have the confidence of his peers nor the credibility among the public at large...this man's sun has set....
Shakespeare would have
Shakespeare would have summed up this rant and rave in these words:
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
I have a few questions to raise:
In the good old days words like "lie" would have been deemed unparliamentary language and the Speaker/President would have called on the Honourable Member to withdraw the offensive word. Often some euphemism would be employed eg "stranger to the truth".
One should refrain from using terms such as whim and caprice which risk denoting irony, if the pronouncements or actions the very person you are defending are so often characterised by those terms better known as "vaps" in local parlance. The framers of the Constitution probably had in mind fair-minded rational persons.
Should an independent-minded President of the Senate allow a senator such lengthy irrelevance in a debate on the Budget? This is not too unlike the situation when the Speaker allowed the famous "whey de mone gorne" tirade when the House was misled into granting extra speaking time. Would a member on the opposide side be permitted to get away with that sort of behaviour?
Did this annonymous legal officer deliberately hide the advice he received or deemed it irrelevant, like tat affidavit and therefore did not see fit to use it. And did this legal officer have a duty to send the document to the AG? And if the legal officer was delinquent in the practice of his or her office, what action was taken? Should the public be left to speculate whether this mysterious legal officer has since retired, resigned, been promoted, or still in place?
Often in law, just like in literature and language, legal language can be subject to subjective interpretation by the human mind. That is why there is an appeals process where often judgements of a lower court are often reversad or varied in a higher court. Therefore legal opinions, even coming from experts, should be tested in a court of law. But vexacious matters can be costly as the recent matter of the radio licence has demonstrated when decisions of the Executive are taken by whims and fancy. In the end justice long delayed was finally seen to be served, though at what cost to the taxpayer.
I would not fathom the
I would not fathom the response because you cannot give me an original thought. Ryan4Party here alone, thats all.
Ryan4Party@live.com
The taming of the shrew is
The taming of the shrew is like speaking of the response you gave me, you need someone to tell you what to do in order to make sense of things. Have an original thought and recognize whats real, do not fog your senses with words you cannot explain with precision and zeal. The words that come out of your mouth are worth more than anything, and if you cannot say anything that of of value, do not let a citizen waste time.
Ryan4Party@live.com
Lex Lootah Lallasingh
Lex Lootah Lallasingh (BOTHO)
Maybe to you it is a waste of time but i believe the questions are worthy to be asked and thus justifies being answered, The question on my mind is thus..A number of procedural issues were abused by UDECOTT during the tenure of Mr Hart, all of these were brought out via the CoE by the Uff Commission, if what Mr. Jeremie is saying has merit it should not be long before some legal action is taken against this lot...and possibly Mr Manning if he has any role in these affairs.
My next thought is if these issues have been raised how far or deep will these investigations go, will it be another "Piarco Airport Affair" which will take forever to complete and have many inconclusive aspects attached to it report.
JJ on the attack? After
JJ on the attack?
After reading this diatribe of JJ's, I was initially going to sit back and just let it slide. After all, some are incapable of being taught.
After carefully reading it a second time, I noticed how JJ is spreading PNM propaganda in Parliament, in an effort to fool the population.
Let me give you an example:
He said if the Prime Minister had concerns about a person who was to fill a post of chief legal officer, the PM had a right to exercise a veto.
"The Law Association president was reported to have predicted that had the veto been challenged it would have been successfully so."
Now, if I recall clearly, the Law Association never said that the Prime Minister did not have the right to veto.
What the Law Association said was that the Prime Minister ought to explain the reasons for his veto, and that if his vetoes are challenged in court for an explanation he would be forced to reveal his reasoning for such vetoes.
This country faces a crisis again of considerable proportions from white-collar crime perhaps more complex and greater than any we have faced in the past—now more than ever courage is needed in all executive positions.
I could not agree more, since the white collar crime is actually runaway under the PNM (Hart/Udecott, UTT, CEPEP, CDAP, Sunway, stadiums, etc etc etc.) Hence is more important to fill the posts as quickly as possible, and not exercise veto after veto until it appears that one is searching for a 'PNM' candidate. Let's fill the posts with the next qualified candidate, turn him/her loose and let the chips fall where they may.
By the way, JJ, Barnett's opinion is that of one man, and you should not rely on it as if it is 'gospel' (regardless of your leader's Christian stance). Any number of lawyers (and laymen) can find counter points to that infantile argument.
The affidavit was struck out for being irrelevant due to to the illegality of the Prime Minister (your boss) not having the legal power to make such an agreement in the first place. The affidavit does however exists, and was referred to by all levels of the courts.
May I point out that in a civil matter, there is not yet any ruling. As an attorney, you know Civil and Criminal matters are separate, carry a different burden of proof. Must I point out to you the fate of OJ Simpson, who won a criminal trial but lost the civil?
It is time you stop using Parliamentary privilege to indulge in a war of words, and creating and promoting PNM propaganda. As I pointed out, we know why you were brought back from London.
Jumbie's Watch
Propaganda at the level put
Propaganda at the level put forth by PNM is irrelevant because the people already recognize it. What is realized will be used accordingly for people to dissect. No longer do we have to be subjugated to see our children suffer, no longer should we have to be undermined and not answered, no longer will we take these injustices without answers.
Ryan4Party@live.com
Well said.
Well said.
Banana Government It is an
Banana Government
It is an insult of the highest order that John Jeremie is again the AG of T&T. It speaks voluumes about this Banana Government
He (Jeremie) speaks big and bad in Parliament and makes threats to investigate all and sundry. However when he was called to testify before Lord Mustill he ran and hid like a coward. I also recall that there were others who ran and hid and left Sherman McNicolls to take the heat. Many of the players in the McNicolls / Sharma fiasco were co-incidentally out of the country on vacation.
Jeremie and Manning are touchstones on our long downward road to Haiti. The persecution of the former Chief Justice of this country is a sad lamentable episode in the thick catalogue of sins that have been committed by this Government. A central player in that saga was Jeremie. It would be interesting to know the exact cost of all the PNM's vendatta's and witchhunts against those who they perceive as its opponents. Then again have said here and I will say again that our civil society in T&T is a failure and no one with call on this Government to account for fear that they will be struck off the invitation list to State functions.
In T&T Free Food and Grog trumps all and that is why we are the way we are.
Ordo Ab Chao
....JJ doesn't enjoy the
....JJ doesn't enjoy the confidence of his peers, nor is he credible among the public....under the cover of parliament, he is allowed to spin and attack others by an impotent, emasculated Speaker....but when he and his PNM big-wig gang had to give account over their plot against the CJ, some left the country to hide, others refused to talk....but one day, in the not too distant future, JJ and Manning et al will be made to give account, just wait....
IT SURE BEATS THE FORMER UNC
IT SURE BEATS THE FORMER UNC A.G WHO HAD A BROTHER ON DEATH ROW IN A FLORIDA PRISON!
BUT OUR LOUD INDOS SEEM TO HAVE A SELECTIVE MEMORY! IF YOU WANT TO SEE HAITI JUST CHECK OUT YOUR PPP RUN GOV'T IN GUYANA ITS LOOKS WORSE THAN HAITI IN FACT IT LOOKS JUST LIKE BIHAR.
Apparently you forget
Apparently you forget Burnham is the reason Guyana is in this condition. Don't compare Ramesh with this present AG. This man is all mouth, arrogrance to the fullest. and remember a no vote of confidence against him. Time to remove him and Manning.
Submitted by PERSAD on 24
Submitted by PERSAD on 24 September 2009 - 12:12pm.
Apparently you forget Burnham is the reason Guyana is in this condition. Don't compare Ramesh with this present AG. This man is all mouth, arrogrance to the fullest. and remember a no vote of confidence against him. Time to remove him and Manning.....QUOTE.
NO I DID NOT FORGET, IN FACT I RECALL THAT JAGAN USED FULLY SUPPORT WHATEVER NONSENSE BURNHAM WAS DOING SINCE HE WAS A "SOCIALIST" JUST LIKE THE JAGANS!
I RECALL ALSO SOME YRS AGO TWO OF BAKH'S MEN GOT KILLED IN GT BY OPPOSITION SUPPORTERS FOR BEING ON A DEATH SQUAD RUN BY A WANTED DRUG LORD ON BEHALF OF THE GUYANESE GOV'T! WE'VE NOTICED LOTS OF INDO TRINIS WANTED FOR CRIMES RUNNING TO GUYANA TO GET AWAY FROM CONVICTIONS DAVID MILLARD ALSO DID THE SAME HE WAS BAKH'S RIGHT HAND MAN.
MOVE TO GUYANA IS YOU THINK THEY ARE DOING A BETTER JOB THAN THE PNM, BY THE WAY ASK THEM ILLEGAL GUYANESE TO LEAVE SINCE THEIR INDO EMPLOYERS HAVE A HABIT OF MOLESTING THEM JUST LIKE THE GREAT PANDAY.
Ata boy Mike, it seems like
Ata boy Mike, it seems like I got under your skin. You do not sound like a Trinidadian, maybe one of them small islands. I have a feeling you live in JON JON, reason you sounded like one of them .
Anyway enjoy your rewards and don't complain about the government. People like you may not have to pay the high taxes gov't proposing.
Mike Samuels, my love, it
Mike Samuels, my love, it seems that my 'motherly' lectures have not gotten through to you yet.
Please do try and behave yourself.
Be NICE and you may get some nice friends to hang around with, go for coffee, and exchange intelligent ideas.
See you are a world traveller - been to Haiti, Guyana and oh boy Bihar. Next time I will tag along with you.
Smile! Enjoy your freedoms my child.
...as far as i recall the
...as far as i recall the affidavit was struck out for being irrelavant and not scandalous, vexatious or oppresive...surely they can't mean the same thing...."Where a court orders an affidavit to be removed from the record on the grounds that it is scandalous, vexatious or oppressive, the effect is to destroy or nullify the public or official records of the statements contained in the affidavit. “...is the AG twisting words to suit his own agenda?
There are preachers who
There are preachers who consider their calling (?) their profession too, we all know what eventually happens to them.
I wonder too if the law association did not make their feelings known, whether JJ would have read out all of this "blubber' in parliament.
So he's going after his friends too, well I am surprised that he has any friends who he could recommend to make jail....but then show me your friends and ..........
I notice that when some
I notice that when some people are incapable of defending the indefensible, they resort to the lowest level of racist diatribe. Can't you just deal with the issues instead of the racial distractions? Eh, "MikeSamuels"?