No Dr. Rowley & Rfari

[rfari]

That's misleading. Part of the legislation was put forward for proclamation which included section 34. So that talk about both houses agreeing to it conveniently leaves out that fact.

It also ties in with the decision of the ag to put things in place to thwart ish and steve extradiction.

[rfari]

Growley brought piarco airport scandal to parliament. Look what happened.

Growley brought udecott and Calder hart to parliament. Look what happened.

Growley brought email gate to parliament. Ollur really getting comfort when ppl say he get set up? If I were on the UNC side (package collection pending) I would support and understand the move to kill off investigations

[4x4]

rfari. I agree with you , but who is the one who went forward with the proclamation? I have no doubt that there was an intention to create a loophole for ish and steve. The AG signed the extradition papers for them to go. Ish and Steve have been using the law against the law simply because they have the money to do it. Any investigation in to section 34 will see both houses under fire and will lead to a situation that none of us really want.

[rfari]

Again we attempting to simplify the ish/Steve and section34 matters and leaving out key details. This has been ventilated numerous times.
Why is there still confusion?

[eliteauto]

rfari. I agree with you , but who is the one who went forward with the proclamation? I have no doubt that there was an intention to create a loophole for ish and steve. The AG signed the extradition papers for them to go. Ish and Steve have been using the law against the law simply because they have the money to do it. Any investigation in to section 34 will see both houses under fire and will lead to a situation that none of us really want.

what situation?
who is us?

[dougla_boy]

rfari. I agree with you , but who is the one who went forward with the proclamation? I have no doubt that there was an intention to create a loophole for ish and steve. The AG signed the extradition papers for them to go. Ish and Steve have been using the law against the law simply because they have the money to do it. Any investigation in to section 34 will see both houses under fire and will lead to a situation that none of us really want.

what situation? Growley henging all ah dem
who is us? Ruling party

[Daran]

Pnm wanted section 34 pass too

[rfari]

Pnm wanted section 34 pass too

How's that?

[trinibourbon]

Section 34 was passed in tandem with other bits of law in principle. The idea was that when all the outstanding issues were resolved the entire act.. Not just section 34..would be proclaimed. Who submitted that section alone to be proclaimed? How and why would Volney influence the Senate to insert that section without the support of the leader of government business in the house? And in any case....




How can a lawyer who was in a chamber requesting a certain course of action end up having to adjudicate on that matter not be a matter of concern?

[Habit7]

Section 34 was agreed to by the Opposition with the expressed undertaking of the Government to set up the Judicial infrastructure to deal expeditiously with the current cases in backlog, before it was proclaimed.

However the Government proclaimed at the dead of night, on a holiday, and 3 years later still no improved Judicial infrastructure.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/All ... 23526.html



Some of you all convenient with your memory.

[trichards80]

Rowlie knew very well that Section 34 was aimed at freeing the Piarco Airport accused. He and the Opposition only now trying to play innocent in that whole fiasco!

[rfari]

Way sah....

[trichards80]

The truth hurts. The Honorable Kamla Persad-Bissessar will NEVER agree to any illegality like Section 34! She showed that when she fired Volney after all the facts were gathered.

[16 cycles]

tririchards80...whaz ur a/s/l?

[4x4]

Section 34 simply wrong

By Andre Bagoo Saturday, September 29 2012

Bad law: Acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith, who is also Senate President, says Section 34 was fundamentally flawed....

ACTING President Timothy Hamel-Smith, who is also the Senate President, yesterday issued an unprecedented statement taking responsibility for the circumstances which led to the passage of the controversial Section 34 of the Administration of Justice Act, calling urgently for Constitution reform so as to prevent a re-occurrence of the fiasco.

In a statement, to be published in today’s press (see page 37A), Hamel-Smith presents the findings of an investigation which he conducted into the Section 34 affair in the wake of receiving a petition on the matter by the Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley on September 18.

Hamel-Smith says Section 34 — which allowed persons to escape liability for crimes that are more than ten-years-old — should never have been made law under his watch as Senate President.

“With hindsight, I am clear that Section 34 of the Act (as amended in the Senate and then passed in both Houses) was fundamentally flawed,” the Acting President says. “It was simply wrong for legislation to be passed which imposed a time limit for the prosecution of indictable crimes which would start to run from the date of the alleged offence, without at least (i) excluding serious white collar crimes, including corruption and money laundering; or (ii) permitting the court to exercise its discretion dependent on the facts of each case.”

He takes personal responsibility, framing the matter as one which arose due largely to inefficiencies in the Parliament’s processes.

“As the Presiding Officer at the time this Act was passed in the Senate, I feel a sense of personal responsibility to ensure that this failure on the part of our Parliamentary System, of which I am an integral part, does not recur,” Hamel-Smith says. “I consider that it is my duty to do whatever I can to assist the nation and its citizens to consider the lessons that are available to be learnt from this situation in which flawed legislation was passed and brought into force by proclamation.”

The Acting President, who is also an attorney-at-law, recommends certain steps be taken to bolster Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation. He says parliamentarians are currently “overburdened”.

“Drawing on my experience in my dual roles as President of the Senate and Acting President, there are a number of suggestions that I wish to make, with a view to avoiding any recurrence of the failure of our Parliamentary System in permitting flawed legislation to be passed and proclaimed,” Hamel-Smith says. Among these suggestions are:

* reform of the process by which a law is proclaimed inserting a special section on acts which records any assurances made on the Parliament floor by the executive Government in relation to the law in question;

* making all MPs (members of the House of Representatives and Senate) full-time;

* increasing the number of non-executive MPs to at least 100;

* giving Parliament more legal advisers;

“I strongly recommend swift implementation so that this blot on our parliamentary system of government will never recur,” Hamel-Smith urges. “I believe that the introduction of the governance measures and procedures outlined above, would go a long way to restoring the confidence of the people in our political systems and allow for an improved system of governance from which our citizens will derive tangible benefits.”

Additionally, the Acting President repeats calls for a strengthened committee system to scrutinise bills.

His appeals come after Newsday on Monday exclusively reported that he was seeking advice on the issue. It is also understood that the statement was subject to extensive vetting from senior counsel at his disposal.

Hamel-Smith says in conducting his own probe he consulted with Independent Senators; counsel; and chairman of the Integrity Commission Ken Gordon. He also reviewed Cabinet Notes and Minutes relating to Section 34; Hansard; public remarks by Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC, as well as Prime Minister Kamla Persad- Bissessar. In his statement, the Acting President addresses the question of the appropriateness of making remarks on the issue.

“Since the delivery of the (Opposition) petition, Section 34 of the Act has been repealed and the Prime Minister (Kamla Persad-Bissessar) has announced the revocation of the appointment of Herbert Volney as Minister of Justice,” Hamel-Smith notes. “Nonetheless, citizens continue to be very concerned that this Section could have been passed and proclaimed, despite all the checks and balances in our parliamentary system and are seeking assurances that no similar action can be repeated in the future. In my view, they have every right to be concerned and to seek such assurances.”

[rfari]

4x4 lewwe deal with facts. Remember hindsight is 20-20

Timeline of a curious clause
Sunday, September 23 2012


Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s decision to fire Justice Minister Herbert Volney last week, for misleading the Cabinet on Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill is still resonating in the minds of the public.

Volney again threw the door open for the debate to rage on when he claimed at least two other Cabinet colleagues, Prakash Ramadhar and Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, had enough time to comment on any issues they may have had with the clause after he presented it to Cabinet in August. Today, Sunday Newsday presents a timelime of the events surrounding the laying of the controversial clause, now since repealed.



TIMELINE TO SECTION 34



Aug 22, 2011: State of emergency declared.



Nov 18, 2011: The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Bill is passed in the House of Representatives. The law originally featured a Section 34 which held that where a person is not tried seven years after “proceedings were instituted” (charges) that person would be discharged. The rationale is to reduce the burden on courts.

The Prime Minister, acting on advice of Minister of Legal Affairs Prakash Ramadhar, tables an amendment raising seven years to ten. Diego Martin North/East MP Colm Imbert objects, saying, “Yes, I do not know why you want to amend it. Ten years is a long time between charge and trial, you know—somebody waiting for ten years.” At this stage, the section started time from the date of charges, not from the date of the crime. Justice Minister Herbert Volney during the debate said, “While this measure can work without rules because it establishes a framework, I can assure Members opposite that nothing is going to be proclaimed before all the necessary measures required to make it succeed happens. As we speak we know that the construction of judicial centres and courthouses will take 30 months.

The Member for Diego Martin North/East has said two years, two to three years, you are fairly accurate, it shows that you are in the engineering business you know where you properly belong. So that as the construction kicks in and takes place, all these new matters coming into the system will go to those facilities, those temporary facilities, pending final construction of the judicial centres in order, Mr Speaker, that those matters that come into the system from hence forth remain fresh, remain new.



Nov 24, 2011: The Prime Minister announces, amid an ongoing state of emergency which ran from August 22 and ended in December, that she has been subject to an assassination plot. Twelve persons are reported detained, under extraordinary detention powers.



Nov 29, 2011: The Senate passes the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act. In piloting the bill early in the sitting, Minister of Justice Herbert Volney says Section 34 would discharge a person ten years after “commission of offences” . However, at the start of the sitting, Section 34 was as it had been passed in the House of Representatives. Only later, at committee stage, as the midnight curfew approached, did Volney table a new Section 34, dating time from the date of the offence. Also the new version compels a judge to insert a “not guilty” verdict above and beyond a simple discharge. No senator speaks on or objects to this amendment at the committee stage.



Dec 5, 2011: State of emergency ends.



Dec 9, 2011: The amendments, including the new Section 34, are approved in the House of Representatives. Volney does not address the question of the change to the date of the crime as opposed to the “institution of proceedings” or the insertion of the provision compelling a judge to render a “not guilty” verdict in the record.

PNM Diego Martin North/East MP Colm Imbert, on the new Section 34, remarks, “The seven year period or ten year period was the effluxion of time between the sufficiency hearing and the trial. Look at what is going on in this amendment. It is completely different! Fundamentally changing the impact—I see the Member of St Augustine nodding. So that means if somebody committed a crime 11 years ago, he has escaped. It is incumbent on the Government and the Minister in this House to explain to us the rational behind these amendments. This amendment appears to be entirely inappropriate. This will automatically disqualify all crimes committed more than 10 years ago—automatically throw them out of the whole purview of indictable proceedings. That makes no sense to me.” Volney replies, “The system is so heavily overburdened that we have to cut off certain cases, other cases that we cannot continue to carry. And, that is exactly why it is a paradigm shift that we take that position. And that is why this measure deals with it. It literally means holding the bull by the horns and dealing with the problem.” He notes a schedule exempts certain offences from the Section such as: murder, rape, shooting, kidnapping and other “blood crimes”.

Ramadhar later says he raised concerns with unnamed Government officials and was assured that the law would not come into effect until the passage of years. He did not foresee, he said, the impact on specific cases.



Dec 16, 2011: President assents the Act. It now awaits proclamation.



Dec 19, 2011: Attorney General Anand Ramlogan announces his decision to not challenge a High Court ruling which quashed his extradition order for Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson. He defends this decision saying it will increase the likelihood of both men getting a local trial.



July 20, 2012: Attorney General Anand Ramlogan leaves the country on an overseas trip, according to Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar.



July 24, 2012: Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Cabinet ministers Volney, who is also the Acting Legal Affairs Minister, Minister of Public Administration Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, Acting Attorney General Ganga Singh, Minister of National Security Jack Warner meet alongside Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard at the Hall of Justice. Warner later says the Cabinet ministers told the CJ the Act would be proclaimed “in toto” or in its entirety. No mention is made of partial proclamation of Section 34. Gaspard says the section is mentioned in passing in terms of its “import” but no decision about early proclamation appears to have been made. Gaspard later says the section would apply to 47 cases.



Aug 4, 2012: Ramlogan returns, by the Prime Ministers’s account.



Aug 5, 2012: The Office of the Prime Minister announces the Prime Minister will be in Jamaica from August 5 to 8. “Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar is expected to return on Wednesday August 8,” the official press release reads. In the interim, the Acting Prime Minister is Jack Warner.



Aug 8, 2012: According to a notice in the Gazette, the President revokes Warner’s appointment as Acting Prime Minister effective the morning of August 8.



Aug 9, 2012: Volney brings a note to Cabinet for the partial proclamation of the Act, with Section 34 and some other preliminary definitions to take effect on August 31 and the rest of the Act on January 2, 2013. The note is approved. The Prime Minister later says at this meeting she asked Volney whether or not the Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Roger Gaspard SC had been consulted. According to the Prime Minister, Volney pointed to terms of the Cabinet note which indicated that they had been.



Aug 16, 2012: The Cabinet approval is confirmed, as is the standard practice the week after a decision is taken.



Aug 28, 2012: President George Maxwell Richards signs the proclamation putting Section 34 into effect on August 31, the date of the 50th anniversary of Independence, and the rest of the law January 2, 2013.



Sept 10, 2012: Businessmen Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson file petitions to the High Court under Section 34, asking that they be freed of corruption charges and be declared not guilty on the grounds their cases have been ongoing for ten years.



Sept 11, 2012: Communications Ministry issues a brief statement announcing the emergency sitting of the House of Representatives to debate the repeal of Section 34.

Hours later, DPP issues a statement that he had not been consulted on the early proclamation of Section 34, and discloses he informed the Attorney General of the impact the provision would have on the prosecution of the Piarco accused.



Sept 12, 2012: Parliament debates the amendment to repeal Section 34. The Attorney General admits to parliamentary oversight, while Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley accuses Government of conspiracy by the early proclamation of Section 34. The amendment is however passed unanimously.



Sept 13, 2012: The Senate passes the amendment with four Independent Senators voting against the repeal of the law.



Sept 17, 2012: Chief Justice Ivor Archie, in the opening of the Law Term, says he was never told by the Cabinet ministers that a section of the Act would be proclaimed in advance.



Sept 18, 2012: Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar apologises for the awful fiasco that led to the proclamation of Section 34, saying he had queried the provision during debate last year but was given certain assurances.

Rowley leads a march to President’s House to present a petition to the President to demand an explanation from the Prime Minister on the early proclamation of Section 34.



Sept 19, 2012: The Prime Minister meets with the Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard who both confirm never being consulted on the early proclamation.



Sept 20, 2012: The Prime Minister announces the dismissal of Volney.

http://www.newsday.co.tt/politics/0,166621.html

[4x4]

Pretty straight forward. Volney did crap. I knew the brother of the guy allegedly killed by Brad Boyce. Volney should have faced the music since then. Seems to also have a systemic issue based on the Hamel Smith article.

[rfari]

Yeah Volney a character from long time. Makes u wonder how he and many others got into the unc cabinet under kamala but that's another discussion.

Right so do you think that section 34 is worth investigating? Remember perverting the course of justice is srs business. Getting fired is a pat on the wrist

[TriniAutoMart]

LIES & LETTERS
Published on May 25, 2015, 10:29 pm AST
By Anna Ramdass

Israel Khan SC has denied a claim by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley that the letter he (Khan) wrote to the Integrity Commission (IC) demanding that the Emailgate probe be concluded had Zainool Hosein's name on the letterhead.

Retired Justice Zainool Hosein is chairman of the Integrity Commission and worked in Khan's Justitia Omnibus Law Chambers as a consultant before he was made chairman of the IC in November 2014.

Khan has challenged Rowley to head to the courts to seek justice if he believes that the Integrity Commission's decision to terminate Emailgate was questionable.

Khan is Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's attorney in the Emailgate affair.

Khan said yesterday that he did send letters to the Commission with Hosein's name on the letterhead-but this was prior to his appointment in 2014.

"The day he (Hosein) was appointed we removed his name from the letterhead and from the building," said Khan.

He said Rowley was misleading the public to think that he (Khan) wrote to the Commission headed by Hosein when at the same time his (Hosein) name was on the letterhead.

Asked whether Hosein should have recused himself from the Emailgate matter as they both worked together in the same Chambers, Khan said: "No, because this is not a case in the court of law. I never appeared before him (Hosein) to make any submissions. Zainool Hosein is not the Integrity Commission, this is different from Rowley meeting Ken Gordon. I never talked to Zainool Hosein on this," said Khan.

He said the Integrity Commission has more than one member and it was inconceivable for people to think that a respected former judge like Hosein would dictate the work of the Commission.

Khan said when Hosein retired from his judgeship, he worked as a consultant with the Chambers. "He was never a friend of mine but even if I am his friend, then so what? If they believe there is bias, let them go to court and let them have the court declare the Commission's decision null and void.

"If they believe that Zainool Hosein, a judge of the Court of Appeal, a man of impeccable character can be influenced on my part, let Dr Rowley file for a judicial review of the decision and strike it down for bias," said Khan.

"This is a small island, everybody know one another, is that to say he will be influenced by me?" he added.

Resignations follow

IC decision

Khan had written to the commission on April 29, 2015 requesting

that the Emailgate matter be completed as the matter was hanging over the head of his client. On May 19, 2015 the Integrity Commission wrote to Khan informing him that its investigation into Emailgate had been terminated. On the heels of this, Commission member Dr Shelly-Anne Lalchan resigned but her family said it was because of personal reasons and not the Commission's decision.

On May 20, Commission deputy chairman Sebastian Ventour resigned saying he did not agree with the decision to close the case and the commission's statement that there was no or insufficient evidence to proceed further was incorrect. There are now three remaining members - Hosein, accountant Pete London and engineer Deonarine Jaggernauth. President Anthony Carmona met with all the former and current Commission members last week .

Persad-Bissessar has also categorically denied that she or her Government interfered in the Commission's business.

Disappointed

in Rowley

Khan said yesterday that he was very disappointed with Rowley and when he sees him he intends to tell him this to his face.

He pointed out that at one point in his life he was a supporter of the People's National Movement (PNM) and he was never biased when he was retained as their attorney.

"When Manning (former prime minister Patrick Manning) selected me and put me on the Uff Commission, three or four months before that I had said that I am supporting the PNM and I am supporting Manning, everybody knows I was PNM. Jack Warner wrote Manning and said that I will be biased...Manning told him in no uncertain terms if it's one person he could vouch for as an independent mind is Israel Khan," he said. He said when he went to the Commission and saw what was happening he stood for what was right and questioned former Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago (UDeCOTT) executive chairman Calder Hart. "Then Manning sent a message to me saying he didn't put me there to protect Rowley and I told him I not protecting Rowley I protecting the country, so I will do what I think is right," said Khan.

Khan lamented that today Trinidad and Tobago has based its politics on race.

"This is a small country and everything is based on tribal and political allegiance, it is unfortunate that the bulk of the Africans supporting the PNM and the bulk of the Indians supporting the UNC so it comes down to the question of race," he said.

Khan said he will not protect his clients if they are guilty. "If after the investigation there's evidence that my clients and others conspired to murder somebody I say put handcuffs on my clients and if the e-mail thread is totally false then lock up Rowley, somebody have to get lock up," he said.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20150525 ... es-letters

[4x4]

Yeah Volney a character from long time. Makes u wonder how he and many others got into the unc cabinet under kamala but that's another discussion.

Right so do you think that section 34 is worth investigating? Remember perverting the course of justice is srs business. Getting fired is a pat on the wrist

Any matter of wrong doing is worth investigating and in this case Volney clearly misdirected the house. I cant recall if it was referred to the IC or police but I suspect that it became so complicated as spelt out by Hamel Smith that it probably was considered better to move on or maybe because too many offices were somehow involved including DPP, President etc.

[Numb3r4]

I wonder how long such an investigation would take?

Still, one of the articles above said that the vote for Section 34 was unanimous, that would mean THEY ALL VOTED for it.....everyone in that case is somewhat culpable...to some degree, some more than others.

Which begs the question how do we trust any one of them, the fact that the opposition voted for it means that they probably got people they would like to get off the hook as well, or at the very least people they would like to safe guard.

Thank God we've got guys like Hamel-Smith and whoever it was in the Senate that pointed it out to the public.

[UML]

Yet another LIE



IC Chairman Zainool Hosein does not belong to Israel Khan's chambers

great now show the letter addressed to Justice Hosein....the letter that Dr. Rowley referred to. Nevertheless if Hosein and khan have a relationship, how is this not as bad as Rowley's meeting Ken Gordon at his house?

One thing I must admit Rowley is a horrible opposition leader. I can think of several other fronts to legitimately attack the PPG but he keeps beating this dead horse and in the end is turning off serious voters with this email nonsense.

If he so horrible, he won 3 out of 5 elections?

67% Not swayed by email gate http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20150523/news/18-18

If you think the PM can commit murder you won't be swayed, if you thin Dr. Rowley has fake emails you won't be swayed.

What is telling that every time the PM seeks to vindicate herself she just ends up with egg on her face. Just relax and let it run its course. When Dr. Rowley faced several allegations before 2007 election you never saw him vociferously trying to vindicate himself. Let others say you are innocent, not you

Is this relationship the same as David West and Rowley?

[Hyperion]

The truth hurts. The Honorable Kamla Persad-Bissessar will NEVER agree to any illegality like Section 34! She showed that when she fired Volney after all the facts were gathered.

wha you smoke? what makes you feel that any human being, least of all a politician, is a paragon of virtue?

allyuh sick and brainwash yes.

[Redman]

The truth hurts. The Honorable Kamla Persad-Bissessar will NEVER agree to any illegality .

Like she agreed to pay 6.5M for the tow job???

She wouldnt agree like that????

Or yuh talking about cabinet approving the high price bid on the waste water treatment plant-put in by the party financier?

like Section 34! She showed that when she fired Volney after all the facts were gathered

So...she made a decision without all the facts???
She is a senior Counsel-she knows the law...
ent?

[Numb3r4]

I don't think one should put ANY politician on a pdistal like that...

Why would you make a statement like that. Not very smart.

[UML]

The enemy of my enemy is MY FRIEND! !!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Captain your ship is sinking! !!

(even further with Jack Warner) :shock:

[rfari]

The enemy of my enemy is MY FRIEND! !!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Captain your ship is sinking! !!

Study that is Fifa money that jack theef pay UNC salaries and campaigns in 2010

[Hyperion]

The enemy of my enemy is MY FRIEND! !!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Captain your ship is sinking! !!

Study that is Fifa money that jack theef pay UNC salaries and campaigns in 2010

Not only finance elections bro and pay salaries nah, study it doh lead to people personal accounts!! bamsee winkin time.

"Captain your ship is sinking" take care she don't end up in hospital again with stress related illnesses.

[Numb3r4]

Ill gotten gains funds TT government, we are officially the crime capital of the world. Does this mean the Jack Warner's political career is FINALLY over?

[Habit7]

The enemy of my enemy is MY FRIEND! !!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Captain your ship is sinking! !!

(even further with Jack Warner) :shock:

Dr Rowley and the PNM never had a problem with JW as an MP and elected representative of the ppl. Dr. Rowley strongly opposed JW in the Cabinet. Furthermore when he was made Nat. Sec minister. That was all Kamla decision.

The PP, including yourself, defended JW as a FIFA official. The PNM condemned JW for his allegations. Whatever common goal PNM and JW had subsequent to that was not based on formal arrangement as JW did went he funded the UNC, anointed Kamla for PM and was their best performing minister.

The world is not going to JW as a PNM, they are going to see him as former chief politician in T&T PP government.


BTW that 4% ILP votes surely will not go to the PP