Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:13 hours 8 min ago
Rowley: Udecott matter now in Manning’s lap
Published: 4 Oct 2009
From left: Keith Rowley and Israel Khan
The halting of the Uff Commission of Enquiry is a national disgrace, says Diego Martin MP, Keith Rowley. “Basically, one thing that was said about Udecott was that it was a runaway horse, and now we have further proof,” said Rowley yesterday. “It is nothing short of a scandal.” He said Attorney General John Jeremie had “given his assurances,” and now that he had been defied, his position was now untenable. “It is inconceivable that a state enterprise, with the public as its shareholders, could defy the Attorney General.”
The MP said the consent that brought about this halt took place by lawyers acting outside of the doors of the court. He said the country should ask: “Where does Udecott get its power from to defy the Attorney General and the President? “This matter now falls squarely in the lap of Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who has been making a career of defending Udecott.”
Khan: The public needs answers. The public must be told why Udecott’s lawyers and the commissioners’ lawyers agreed to stay the proceedings for three months. Khan felt that the lawyers must have had a good reason to agree. He said: “It is very unfortunate, and I am very disappointed, because the commission could have carried out their tasks while Udecott pursued their constitutional rights, with their judiciary matter regarding the allegations of bias against the commissioners.”
Khan said if the court ruled in Udecott’s favour, the report would be null and void, and they would not have suffered any prejudice if the commission had continued their work. However, Khan had no doubt in his mind that Udecott would lose that matter in the court. He asked: “What about if Udecott and Calder Hart were to lose at the first instance judge, then lose at the Court of Appeal, then lose at the Privy Council?” He said that would take years.
“Any right-thinking person must come to the conclusion that the commission of enquiry must not stop.” He said the report could be submitted to the President; the President submit it to the Prime Minister, and then they could hold it in abeyance until the final court pronounced on the matter.
Both Rowley and Khan knew
Both Rowley and Khan knew from the very begining that this Commission of Enquiry was only a sham set up at considerable taxpayer cost to satisy public outcry. But there was never any serious intention for this COE to function. The whole thing was a set-up, a joke, a game, a charade, call it what you want.
In the first place the issue was UDECOTT. aka Calder Hart. Why was it necessary to add the entire construction industry to the terms of reference, if not for a diversion?
Was it necessary to go down the road of a Comission of Enquiry? Are there not any less complicated legal avenues to pursue investigations in cases where there is suspected criminal activity? Israel Khan is a clever lawyer and could have come up with some ideas on this if he genuinely has his country's interest at hart.
Rowley is correct. Jeremie's position is untenable. Now Manning will have to choose between Jeremie and Hart. If he chooses Hart, then the public will speculate that Hart has some kind of control over him and want to know what it is.
If he chooses Jeremie, Jeremie will have his work cut out for him. But even if he doesn't choose Jeremie, Jeremie has a number of options including: stay with his tail between his legs, do as his predecessor and demit office, or separate the politics from the Office of the Attorney General and advise the DPP and CoP to institute criminal investigations based on revelations already in the public domain.
Which will it be?
You know Prince, you and
You know Prince, you and Gardenia are constantly speaking on both sides of these issues with equal fervour.
Where do you all really stand?
In a previous blog you stated your position against the demands of the opposition in requesting assurances from the AG before they voted for the bill, but the AG did assure all that UDECOTT's lawyers would not seek to stay the commission of enquiry and look and what occurred.
Where do you really stand? Are you mamaguying us?
Thank you mamaguy for your
Thank you mamaguy for your query. Sorry if I might have been misunderstood. However, I'm a bit lost here about the linkage between the 3 assurances Mr Mark sought from the AG and the AG's general assurances to the Senate, which made my views two-sided. I'm not going back to read any of the news items or blogs, so I apologise in advance if I'm mistaken in what I have to say:
What I said in essence, relying on memory, was that the Opposition should support the validation bill without preconditions in the interest of an expeditious passage and if there was any attempt at a cover up of the Report, the Opposition could take the issue to the People. It was never my intention to speak on both sides and I didn't perceive my statement as both-sided.
In any event in subsequent events we saw the Opposition not supporting the bill, the bill still being passed in the Senate and the rest is history.
Hope I was able to set the record straight.
"Mamaguy" - I am at a loss
"Mamaguy" - I am at a loss as to why you have 'called me out' mentioning my name in your commentary, questioning my point of view, but failing to identify the exact commentary that seems to be causing you so much concern.
Therefore, I will be unable to respond with an intelligent answer.
But, as a general rule, when I presents my comments on any article, I do so paying particular attention to the content of said article and the subject matter.
Where do I stand?
- I stand on the side of being able to think and reason, intelligently, and to submit my comments accordingly.
"Mamaguying"?
- Sorry to disappoint you, but you appear to be an intelligent and independent thinker, and as such should I choose to indulge in "mamaguying"? anyone, which I can assure you, I have no intentions of doing, you would be able to see through my charade.
I have better things to do with my time than to sit at the computer playing 'mind games' with the readers. And I can assure you that should I indulge in such a practice, that The Guardian will be removing my blogs off their property, denying me the privilege of submitting my comments via this platform.
I hope that under the circumstances I have adequately provided you with the answer you desired.
Tbank you.
Gardenia
TELL ME SOMETHING NEW
TELL ME SOMETHING NEW -
It always was in the PM's hands.
...any right thinking person
...any right thinking person would want Israel Khan to button his hypocritical lips, this Manning sycophant has done his fair share to scuttle this inquiry....JJ's feigned impotence over this matter is another story in this unfolding expensive saga of clowns and thievery.....the noose around the neck of the nation's Father is tightening...
This Calder Hart has got to
This Calder Hart has got to go he has been using the government whois terribly blind Mr Manning cant further than his nose how this crook ripping of Trinidad and Tobago for many years now he Hart must be laughing that trinis are stupid ignorant fools fighting amongst themselves while he fills his pockets... We will soon to find out too late how cheap and badly built all the buildings done by this man are we such suckers to foreigners!!
MAYBE
MAYBE -
He is doing Manning's bidding. Who hired him can fire him.
Welcome to Rome judgment day
Welcome to Rome judgment day is here, are you ready?