It seems that every time one of the ministers closely involved in the Section 34 scandal-and it remains one of great proportions-offers an explanation as a way out of the mire, the explanation throws up additional questions and in some instances, incredulity. That surely is the case with Attorney General Anand Ramlogan's pleading not guilty on the basis of ignorance of criminal law and that it was the Minister of Justice who had oversight of criminal issues involving the State.
However, in the same breath, AG Ramlogan admits, even if in sotto voce, that he as AG still remains the legal adviser to the Cabinet. He pleads that because of this inexperience and lack of expertise he could not take responsibility for Section 34 passing easily through Cabinet.
Is this the same hotshot attorney, Anand Ramlogan, who for years had deep insight into the alleged criminal activities committed by the likes of Calder Hart and is now threatening to criminally prosecute those he identifies as being PNM financiers?
Notwithstanding his alleged lack of expertise in criminal matters, how difficult is it for an experienced attorney to figure out that he cannot one day decide against appealing the extradition ruling of a judge, promising that the trial will be speedily effected, and the following day say nothing about the early passage of Section 34 which had the effect of freeing the same people he promised to have prosecuted?
Even if Mr Ramlogan could not decipher for himself the impact of premature and partial passage of Section 34, as Attorney General faced with long-standing allegations that he and the Government were attempting to let party financiers off the hook, could he not do what he and other AGs have always done: contract legal advice from outside of his Ministry?
Mr Ramlogan may also consider it a clever attempt to sidle out of his predicament by noting that none of his immediate predecessors were experienced practitioners at the criminal bar. However, unlike Ramlogan, the country has never heard complaints from any one of them about their incapacity to carry out aspects of their portfolio because of lack of experience in criminal proceedings. Maybe this is really an indication that Ramlogan is unsuited to the job.
Only those who are blinded by their loyalty to the party and intent on salvaging the reputation of Mr Ramlogan, his Prime Minister and indeed the rest of the cabinet would fall for this most recent attempt to duck responsibility for what is turning out to be a monumental series of errors or worse.
On a related matter, the line by Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to the effect that her Attorney General could not be blamed because he was out of the country, becomes quite interesting as Mr Ramlogan has admitted to having been in the cabinet meeting when the decision was taken to partial and early proclamation of Section 34.
What was Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar hoping to achieve by saying that Mr Ramlogan was out of the country, if the intent was not to have him be absent when the fateful decisions were taken? In the absence of any logical explanation for that part of the statement, there seems no rationale for the PM simply dropping this line when seeking to absolve Attorney General Ramlogan.
Increasingly the need is urgent for a forensic investigation into all matters surrounding the proclamation of Section 34. A government stands or falls on credibility and there surely is a large percentage of the population that finds the Government wanting in its conduct and attempts to explain its way out of Section 34.