JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

News analy­sis

Section 34 conspiracy still alive

by

20160127

Rose­marie Sant

On No­vem­ber 29, 2011 while the coun­try was un­der a state of emer­gency, then Jus­tice Min­is­ter Her­bert Vol­ney made a change to Sec­tion 34 of the Ad­min­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice (In­dictable Pro­ceed­ings) Bill 2011 at the com­mit­tee stage of the Bill and it was sub­se­quent­ly passed unan­i­mous­ly in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

That clause pro­posed a le­gal mech­a­nism for cer­tain cas­es be­fore the courts and un­de­ter­mined for ten years.The par­tic­u­lar Sec­tion 34 was pro­claimed by Pres­i­dent George Maxwell Richards sev­en months lat­er on Au­gust 31, 2012 while the coun­try was in the midst of 50th an­niver­sary of In­de­pen­dence cel­e­bra­tions.

In its orig­i­nal form Sec­tion 34 stat­ed: "On an ap­pli­ca­tion by the ac­cused, a judge shall dis­charge an ac­cused if the pro­ceed­ings were in­sti­tut­ed pri­or to the com­ing in­to force of this Act and the tri­al has not com­menced with­in ten years af­ter the pro­ceed­ings were in­sti­tut­ed."

The amend­ed clause in­tro­duced by Vol­ney stat­ed: "A Judge shall on an ap­pli­ca­tion by the ac­cused, dis­charge the ac­cused and record a ver­dict of not guilty if the of­fence is al­leged to have been com­mit­ted on a date that is ten years or more be­fore the date of the ap­pli­ca­tion."

It was a sig­nif­i­cant change but no one at the time recog­nised the im­pact it would have on one of the coun­try's biggest cas­es, in­clud­ing the Pi­ar­co Air­port cor­rup­tion case, in which two key Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress fi­nanciers–Ish­war Gal­barans­ingh and Steve Fer­gu­son–were charged.

For­mer T&T Guardian jour­nal­ist Denyse Renne broke the sto­ry of the link be­tween the pas­sage of Sec­tion 34, Gal­barans­ingh and Fer­gu­son and the mul­ti-mil­lion dol­lar air­port cor­rup­tion.

Both men were good friends of a for­mer UNC gov­ern­ment min­is­ter Car­los John, the man cred­it­ed with woo­ing Vol­ney away from the bench, where he sat as a High Court judge be­fore his sud­den jump in­to the po­lit­i­cal are­na. Vol­ney was se­lect­ed to con­test the St Joseph seat on a UNC tick­et which he went on to win.

Ob­servers not­ed that Gal­barans­ingh's wife, Cheryl, was one of the spe­cial­ly in­vit­ed guests at the swear­ing-in of Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar in 2010 as prime min­is­ter.

Even be­fore the Act was re­pealed Vol­ney was seen with Gal­barans­ingh at the lat­ter's Grafton Beach Ho­tel, To­ba­go, and sev­er­al gov­ern­ment min­is­ters of the then Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship gov­ern­ment at­tend­ed Gal­barans­ingh's son's wed­ding in To­ba­go in 2014.

There were 47 cas­es in the le­gal sys­tem in­volv­ing per­sons who would have ben­e­fit­ted from the pas­sage of the Sec­tion 34, which changed the lim­i­ta­tion on pros­e­cu­tion of cer­tain of­fences from ten years from the date of charge to ten years from the date of the of­fence.

Gal­barans­ingh and Fer­gu­son were among those 42 and went to the courts with­in hours of the procla­ma­tion of the leg­is­la­tion to have their mat­ters dis­missed. Giv­en the pub­lic out­cry, the then Op­po­si­tion, the Peo­ple's Na­tion­al Move­ment, or­gan­ised a mass ral­ly call­ing for re­peal of the leg­is­la­tion.

Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions Roger Gas­pard raised an im­me­di­ate red flag on the mat­ter which would trig­ger a chain of events which led the then gov­ern­ment move to re­peal the law in an emer­gency ses­sion of Par­lia­ment.

In a state­ment to the me­dia, Gas­pard made it clear that he had been con­sult­ed in March 2011 on the leg­is­la­tion and sub­mit­ted his thoughts in May of the same year. The draft which he com­ment­ed on did not con­tain sec­tion 34 as was sub­se­quent­ly passed by the Par­lia­ment.

Gas­pard said he had con­sult­ed with le­gal lu­mi­nar­ies "based both at home and abroad and they have not been able to point me in the di­rec­tion of any leg­is­la­tion that could be con­sid­ered to be a sib­ling of or par­al­lel with Sec­tion 34 in the en­tire Com­mon­wealth."

The Act was as­sent­ed to by the Pres­i­dent on De­cem­ber 16, 2011, and on De­cem­ber 19, then at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan an­nounced his de­ci­sion not to ap­peal the judg­ment of Jus­tice Ron­nie Boodoos­ingh that the de­ci­sion to ex­tra­dite Gal­barans­ingh and Fer­gu­son to the US was un­just and op­pres­sive.

The DPP told the me­dia via his state­ment that "doubt­less when he an­nounced his de­ci­sion, the at­tor­ney gen­er­al must have had in mind the pro­vi­sions of Sec­tion 34."

The DPP ad­mit­ted to be­ing tak­en by "sur­prise" when the act was pro­claimed on In­de­pen­dence Day 2012. He said he wrote to the AG on Sep­tem­ber 10, 2012 telling him he had grave con­cerns about the Act and that Sec­tion 34 should be "re­pealed im­me­di­ate­ly with retroac­tive ef­fect."

Par­lia­ment met two days to re­peal the Act. It would be the same day that the Jus­tice Min­is­ter would be dis­missed.

In their judg­ment dis­miss­ing the ap­peals of Gal­barans­ingh and Fer­gu­son, the Privy Coun­cil Law Lords not­ed that the DPP had been placed "with­out warn­ing or pri­or con­sul­ta­tion in an em­bar­rass­ing po­si­tion, es­pe­cial­ly in the light of the out­come of the ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings and the stage which the pro­ceed­ings had reached when sec­tion 34 was brought in­to force."

Then prime min­is­ter Per­sad-Bisses­sar had in­sist­ed that the con­tro­ver­sial clause was "nev­er meant to pro­tect any sec­toral in­ter­ests."

She told the na­tion on Sep­tem­ber 12, 2012 that "Sec­tion 34 would nev­er have been pro­claimed at any time had it not been unan­i­mous­ly ap­proved by the Par­lia­ment and the Sen­ate with­out a sin­gle ab­sten­tion or dis­sent­ing voice."

If there was a con­spir­a­cy to ben­e­fit "cer­tain in­di­vid­u­als" she said it would have had to in­volve the "gov­ern­ment, the op­po­si­tion and the in­de­pen­dent bench­es since it was ap­proved by all those groups."

The orig­i­nal note which went to the Cab­i­net in Au­gust 2012 sought ap­proval to pro­claim the Act from Jan­u­ary 1, 2013. The note al­so sought ap­proval for the ear­ly procla­ma­tion of Sec­tion 34 on the ba­sis that it was nec­es­sary to fa­cil­i­tate a seam­less op­er­a­tional tran­si­tion and give au­thor­i­ty for the re­cruit­ment and ap­point­ment of Mas­ters of the High Court by the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion so that the Act could be op­er­a­tionalised on the ef­fec­tive date.

Vol­ney had re­port­ed­ly as­sured the Cab­i­net that he had the sup­port and ap­proval of both the Chief Jus­tice and the DPP on the mat­ter. His­to­ry would show oth­er­wise.Vol­ney was dis­missed on Sep­tem­ber 12, 2012 less than a month af­ter the con­tro­ver­sial clause was pro­claimed. But the dam­age had been done.

The mat­ter has been tied up in the courts and went all the way to the Privy Coun­cil, which ruled on Mon­day that the re­peal of Sec­tion 34 was law­ful. The mat­ter will now con­tin­ue in the lo­cal courts.

Move­ment for So­cial Jus­tice leader David Ab­du­lah told the GML En­ter­prise Desk that the Privy Coun­cil Law Lords had cleared the way for the mat­ter to be heard but he said the coun­try is yet to find out "what was the role of the le­gal ad­vis­er to the Cab­i­net, at­tor­ney gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, in all of this.

"He was present at the Cab­i­net meet­ing which led to the procla­ma­tion of Sec­tion 34. He knew that when he de­cid­ed not to ap­peal Jus­tice Boodoos­ingh's judg­ment that the two not be ex­tra­dit­ed, he knew then what was the im­pli­ca­tion of Sec­tion 34. He knew the fi­nanciers would have walked free."

Ab­du­lah said he was hard pressed to un­der­stand why the then prime min­is­ter felt vin­di­cat­ed by the Privy Coun­cil rul­ing. He said the Lon­don court found that the de­ci­sion to "re­peal Sec­tion 34 was found to be legal­ly and con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sound and there­fore the per­sons charged with al­leged acts of fraud will have to face the le­gal process in the courts."

Ab­du­lah be­lieves that the rul­ing is a vic­to­ry for the peo­ple. "The pub­lic out­cry was ab­solute­ly es­sen­tial and the ac­tions tak­en by many of us in the weeks and months of Sec­tion 34 was clear­ly very im­por­tant. It was Cab­i­net that ap­proved the pro­pos­al to pro­claim Sec­tion 34 in ad­vance of the pro­posed timetable.

"The Cab­i­net ap­proved the mis­chief the ear­ly procla­ma­tion of Sec­tion 34 and the ef­fect would have been to al­low the fi­nanciers and oth­ers to go free. They would have been the prin­ci­pal ben­e­fi­cia­ries," he said.

For­mer min­is­ter in the Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship gov­ern­ment Mary King said the Privy Coun­cil rul­ing was a "vic­to­ry for the peo­ple." She said if the Act had not been "pro­claimed we would not be in the po­si­tion we are to­day. What are they vin­di­cat­ed about. They made an er­ror. The coun­try is vin­di­cat­ed."

In a state­ment on Tues­day, Prime Min­is­ter Kei­th Row­ley said Per­sad-Bisses­sar's talk of vin­di­ca­tion was "in­sult­ing to the pop­u­la­tion." He said the rul­ing was "a re­minder of the dis­grace­ful saga of Sec­tion 34 and the shame that hangs in­deli­bly around the necks of her Cab­i­net that was caught and re­ject­ed."

Ab­du­lah said "the Part­ner­ship still stands con­demned and we will nev­er re­al­ly find out why one and one, come up with two, to free the fi­nanciers."

But Sec­tion 34 was pro­claimed with­out the promised mea­sures which would have ad­dressed some key short­com­ings in the coun­try's jus­tice sys­tem de­spite a promise from the then jus­tice min­is­ter. (which would have in­clud­ed new court rules and more court hous­es)

And then there was the is­sue of the emails which were said to have been passed be­tween key Cab­i­net min­is­ters and sent over a 17-day pe­ri­od in Sep­tem­ber 2012, that Row­ley brought to Par­lia­ment, ex­pos­ing a pur­port­ed crim­i­nal con­spir­a­cy to lis­ten in on the DPP's con­ver­sa­tions and in­tim­i­date and harm Renne.

The Email­gate in­ves­ti­ga­tion is still with the po­lice.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored