If the Evidence Bill is amended to include an option for witnesses to be granted anonymity when testifying in court, the door will be opened for fabricated testimonies to be given against innocent people.
So said Opposition Senator Sean Sobers as he contributed to the debate on the amendments to the bill in the Senate yesterday.
The clause Sobers referred to-Clause 12aG-would provide that where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the identity of a witness should be concealed from an accused person and the public so as to protect the witness, any of his relatives or any other person, the court may grant a witness anonymity order.
But Sobers said in recent times there was a case where a witness fabricated evidence because he wanted to be a vigilante. He said based on that, the clause should be completely removed from the bill.
“Madame President the amount of travesties of justice that would occur if such prescription is made into law—that our children and children’s children would not forgive us for doing something like this,” Sobers said.
He accused the government of using the clause as a solution to the failing Witness Protection Programme and said the dangers of passing such an amendment into law must be considered.
But in response, vice president of the Senate, Nigel De Freitas said while the order seems to be an issue of contention, the existence of a Witness Protection Programme in T&T defines the need for this type of clause.
De Freitas said the clause will allow the court to protect a witness without the state having to foot an exorbitant bill to protect a witness.
De Freitas said there are specific circumstances under which this order can be implemented and it will be done by the discretion of a judge.
He said there are enough checks and balances specified in the amendment to ensure that even if a judge is ‘fooled’ by a witness fabricating evidence, there are provisions to have the order revoked.