You are hereAnand's Collection / PNM Above the Law?

PNM Above the Law?

By anand - Posted on 20 September 2009

"The essence of the agreement between the Prime Minister and Mr Abu Bakr, on behalf of the Jamaat, was that certain advantages would be given to the Jamaat out of State property, in return for securing voting support for the Prime Minister’s political party. In the opinion of the board, this was corrupt within the meaning and intendment of section 3, and each party to the agreement was acting in contravention of the section... The whole purpose of this agreement was to obtain electoral advantage for one political party, the PNM, by means of using State property, and as such, it was clearly illegal.” — Privy Council, in the recent appeal in Appeal No 30 of 2008 between Yasin Abu Bakr v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [bottom of p9]. In any genuine, functioning, democratic society, the foregoing statement from the highest court would have prompted a police investigation without the intervention of the DPP or Justice Narine. Instead, we have the remarkable situation where the acting DPP, quite rightly, referred the matter to the acting Commissioner of Police, who simply ignored the implied directive to investigate.

Mr Philbert has done his office and himself a great disservice. To “play dumb and deaf,” in response to such a serious matter, by flippantly claiming that he had not “seen or received” Ms Antoine’s letter, is to render himself unfit for the office of Police Commissioner. It is inherently incredible that such a letter would have been sent by the DPP, and not be immediately placed on his desk. Any officer so stupid as to not recognise the urgency of such a letter and place it before the Commissioner should be fired forthwith. But alas, this is not the first time Mr Philbert has come across as if he is prostrating himself before the PNM, ready to join the PM’s so-called national band (with a few colours from the national rainbow missing), “Divine Echoes,” to sing for his supper. Mr Philbert turned a blind eye to the illegal political rally hosted by the PNM in Woodford Square whilst Parliament debated a motion of no confidence in the PM. That matter was before the Integrity Commission, and will probably reach nowhere, because the Government (via the President) refuses to appoint a new commission.

AG Jeremie’s statement in Parliament, in defence of his political leader, was nothing short of a frontal assault on the judiciary. Justice Narine would have been in serious dereliction of duty if he did not refer this matter to the police. The Privy Council dropped a conspicuous hint that any fool could appreciate. Our gun-shy and politically-correct Court of Appeal seemed quite content to bury its head in the sand and simply let the matter pass, without comment, but the Privy Council was prepared to call a spade a spade. It upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, but said enough to point us in the right direction. It is easy to mistake judicial conservatism for political bias or genuflection, but in my experience, our judiciary is independent, but far too reticent. In short, CJ Archie is no more of a PNM Chief Justice than Justice Narine a UNC.

To assert that because the matter was deemed “scandalous and irrelevant” to the issue that was before the court means that it was not worthy of investigation is absurd.

The evidence was not rejected because it was lacking in credibility; it was not allowed because it was irrelevant to the issue the court had to determine. It was not “rejected” in the sense that it was considered untrue. It was not admitted into evidence, and hence could not have been rejected consequent upon judicial inquiry. This is not the first time the PNM has attacked the judiciary. When Justice Amrika Tiwary ruled against PM Manning in favour of foreign officer Feroza Ramjohn, Ken Valley said, in Parliament, that she was “a UNC judge.” After the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ganga Persad-Kissoon and Feroza Ramjohn, recently, the PM reacted by condemning the service commissions and threatening to abolish them. The Maha Sabha radio licence case led to two complaints before the Integrity Commission which have been investigated and found to be meritorious.

All that’s left to be done is for a new commission to be appointed to decide whether the matter should be referred to the DPP for criminal charges to be laid. Faced with this predicament, the Government has simply refused to appoint the commission, and after public pressure mounted, claimed it wanted to abolish it altogether. Mr Manning boasts about the PNM’s commitment to transparency and good government. This is part of Vision 2020. Transparency, however, means that Mr Manning will not put himself above the law when we have a PNM Commissioner of Police, a PNM DPP and a PNM judiciary. Very soon, his wishes may come true.

By Anand Ramlogan

Site Admin Note: Privy Council Judgment in case of  Bakr v AG of Trinidad & Tobago

Tags
Jumbie's picture
JJ the Joker Part 1
Submitted by Jumbie on Sun, 20/09/2009 - 10:38.

Chief Justice Archie was right when he spoke out on the Draft Constitution. The response by JJ (John Jeremie, the joker) clearly shows political mischief at its second best, the best being the dotish response submitted after the Law Association condemned his clownish activities in Parliament.

“The PNM notes with concern recent developments which have seen the hijacking of the once venerable Law Association by a bunch of political opportunists bent on engaging the duly elected Government in political warfare...”

It is wise to note the words of the Lord Chief justice of England and Wales, at the 16 Commonwealth Law Conference in Hong Kong:

First, because when we speak of judicial independence, and then speak of the rule of law, we tend to make it sound as if we have two separate concepts, when they are as closely intertwined as a mutually dependent and loving couple after many years of marriage, where one simply cannot survive without the other. And second, to remind us that we should never take either judicial dependence or the rule of law for granted.

The places where things have gone wrong include countries which believed that they were mature democracies, where these things did not and could not happen, but they did.  But they did.

…There was, of course, no physical intimidation, no threat to security of judicial tenure, none of the extremes of tyranny. But it is the first steps which have to be watched.

...The problem with the phrase “eternal vigilance” is that it appears to focus on the long term. But the focus is the immediate, today,  every day. The insidious dangers are no less threatening than the obvious ones, and for the judiciary to acquiesce in the first small, even tiny, steps, may ultimately be terminal.

…In a democratic country all power, however exercised in the community, must be founded on the rule of law. Therefore each and every exercise of political power must be accountable not only to the electorate at the ballot box, when elections take place, but also and at all times to the rule of law. Independent professions protect it.  Independent press and media protect it.

Ultimately, however, it is the judges who are guardians of the rule of law. That is their prime responsibility. They have a particular responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of each citizen, as well as the integrity of the constitution by which those rights exist.

…Without independence, and without respect for judicial independence these desirable, indeed elementary facets of a civilised community, are threatened. At the same time, no individual, or group of individuals, nor even any judge, however high his office, has any dispensing power – that is, the power to set aside or disregard the law.

The absence of any dispensing power was, and remains, fundamental to the rule of law. Judges cannot dispense with it.  Parliament itself cannot dispense with it. None of our democratic institutions may do so. They are, of course, entitled to change it.

The word,  some of you will already have seen, but which you will all increasingly see, is “constitutionality”. It is a word with a great future. In other words, if the executive wished the legislature to pass such an outrageous Act, it should do so in language that was so plain, that the public conscience would be revolted,  and the legislation fail, or if passed, the price would be paid at the next election.

It is therefore fundamental that there are no circumstances in which the executive may even appear to tell judges how cases should be decided. Even when the public agrees with the executive at the particular time in relation to the particular point, future public confidence that justice will be done impartially and independently will be eroded. In the end, I firmly believe that the public, even if dissatisfied with an individual decision in an individual case, wants its judiciary to be independent of the executive.

What I am driving at is that the judiciary has an institutional responsibility to ensure that inefficiencies in the legal system do not, as Lord Denning once remarked, “turn justice sour”. In 1215 when King John signed the great Magna Carta it was agreed, “To no-one will we deny or delay right or justice”.  Over the centuries, our greatest writers have identified the consequences of inefficiency. In Hamlet, Shakespeare listed it among the “whips and scorns of time”. At the very start of Bleak House, Charles Dickens identified its ability to exhaust finances, patience, courage and hope. Can you imagine anything worse than exhaustion of hope? And if hope is exhausted through the process of litigation, or a long-delayed criminal trial, how can we, as judges, disclaim any responsibility for it?

Yes, all signs point even more strongly to a trotting dictatorship, but one that is slyly being implemented.

There is, of course, "no physical intimidation, no threat to security of judicial tenure, none of the extremes of tyranny". But the first steps are already seen, and lately the creeping has become a trot. Pretty soon, we'll be galloping to the Executive Presidency.

The PNM's position that JJ's response was approved by the Speaker is a defence as weak as the bowels in a severe diarrhoea attack. The Speaker is not impartial and is in fact, a sitting member of the PNM. His rulings in Parliament have been so biased that the Opposition has all but given up in getting a fair shake.

The PNM and JJ ought to be thankful that judges are ' too reticent' (Anand Ramlogan) and not as outspoken as in England. JJ might be blushing, even with skin of crapaud leather.

Jumbie's picture
JJ, the joker, part 2
Submitted by Jumbie on Sun, 20/09/2009 - 15:10.

Diary of events:

First, Justice Narine referred the affidavit of Abu Bakr (in which he alleges that Patrick Manning (then Prime Minister) made a deal with him to forgive the payments owed to the state in return for 'muscle' at the general elections in support of the PNM) to the DPP who in turn referred it for investigation to the chief duncey.

It was funny seeing the way Pa-trick lost his cool and appeared goggle-eyed as if pressure was being applied about his middle... much like a car wheel running over a crapaud, I imagine.

Then, JJ the joker stood up in Parliament (at the urgings of the defendant-to-be, Patrick Manning) and chastised the sitting Judge (who, unfortunately cannot publicly comment and defend himself). JJ (unfortunately) claims Parliamentary privilege, and his biased and idiotic rants were approved by the Speaker, Barendra Sinanan. Of course they were!!

Barry is a registered, known PNM member.

Barry has a record of being partisan, biased in favour of the PNM, if you want it more succinctly.

The Law Association then issued a statement in which they condemned the clown JJ for his rant, and misleading the Parliament.
 

“If the Attorney General had a difficulty with the direction of (then) Mr Justice Narine it was certainly open to him, as a party to the proceedings, to appeal against that direction to the Court of Appeal,” the release, signed by Association President Martin Daly SC, noted. “To opt instead to level a public rebuke of the Judge was wrong and had the tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

“It is our considered view that the Attorney General was wrong in law…to suggest to the House that Mr Justice Narine (as he then was) had defied the order of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. While the affidavit in question had been struck out and removed from the record, that did not preclude the Learned Judge, if he thought necessary, from dealing with it in the way that he did.”

Citing the British case of Midland Bank Trust v Green, Daly continued, “Mr Justice Narine (as he then was) had jurisdiction to have directed that the contents of the affidavit be referred to the Commissioner and the DPP. Indeed to do otherwise would arguably be contrary to the role of a judge as a guardian of the rule of law.” The body also noted that while Jeremie made a statement on the issue last Monday in Parliament, generally, under the Standing Order 36 (10), “members of Parliament are prohibited from criticising judges” unless a motion is moved for that purpose.

(Wanna bet he is never sent to the Privileges Committee for disciplining?).

 

Now, note that the position of the Law Association is that JJ is wrong in law, eh. Not that he is promoting propaganda (as he clearly is) or any other such position it could have claimed. No, the LA stuck to a non-partisan, non-biased position and clearly gave examples to show that its position has merit.

 

On the other hand, the quick response by the PNM (mere hours after the Law Association's) is one of sheer propaganda, bias, political mischievousness, devious, underhanded.... you get the point by now, I am sure.

 

“The PNM notes with concern recent developments which have seen the hijacking of the once venerable Law Association by a bunch of political opportunists bent on engaging the duly elected Government in political warfare,” the release, emailed by PNM staff member Tricia Harripaul and headed “PNM Condemns Political Law Association” reads:

“The PNM is… not surprised that the Law Association, which under its current leadership is now openly hostile to the PNM and its leader, continues to parrot positions indistinguishable from that of the Opposition parties.

“The PNM has every confidence that the discerning public will recognise the gamesmanship being employed by the political masqueraders and will reject them as it has consistently rejected all previous masqueraders brave enough to take off their masks or legal robes to engage in overt political activity.

“Given the knee jerk hostility of the Law Association leadership to the PNM and its leader, it came as no surprise that the Association would find some way to justify the extra-legal intervention of now Appeal Court Judge Rajendra Narine in using an affidavit that had been struck out by superior courts. While not entirely unexpected, the attempt to attack the Honourable Attorney General for exposing Justice Narine’s legal adventurism, is none the less deplorable.”

“In arrogantly seeking to challenge the right of politicians to speak on legal matters, the Law Association has also bordered on contempt of Parliament,” the party claimed, saying Jeremie’s statement in Parliament was “approved by the Speaker”.

There is no evidence to back up the claims of the PNM statement, and it is clearly a media release designed to cast doubt on the validity of that said by the LA. Smear the messengers and the message becomes tainted also. A classic tactic of the PNM since days immemorial!

 

Of course, lately ANY criticism of the PNM (and/or its members) have been deemed to be "political opportunists bent on engaging the duly elected Government in political warfare". So, we must simply bend over and take it up the nether hole, whatever the PNM feels is right for us. We must NEVER question, criticise or condemn what the goodly Christian has in store for us. It's a case of 'grease yuh bam bam, and grease it good!'.

 

The Government is at an all-time low in performance, ideas, vision, morality, perception, transparency, delivery,... shit, I can't even begin to list my list. But hey, think of the opposite, it's easier. The PNM government is at an all-time HIGH in terms of corruption and tiefing.

The Emperor Caught Without Clothes...?
Submitted by Trini.t.o.o on Mon, 21/09/2009 - 02:17.

...is this the case of the Naked Emperor...???

...is it because there might be some truth to the allegations contained in the affadavit, that there is so much apparent frustration and anger being shown and coming from the AG and Patrick...as well as from the PNM party itself...?

...if these things are not true, as the AG stated in parliament recently, and that it was always the "intention" of the Government to refute the statements in the affdavit as being untrue...then all Patrick has to do is come out openly and say that these allegations in the affadavit are not true, that he had no such meetings with Abu Bakr, and that there were no agreements made as has been declared in the affadavit...!...simple as that...!

...how hard is that to do...?

...was he hoping that all this will go away and he won't have to explain it to the people at all...?..if there is a matter of credibility...at this time I will have to believe Abu Bakr, much as I am no fan of his...but at least he is consistent in his statements to date...can the same be said of Patrick...?

...as Warren Buffet said, " we will see all those who have been bathing naked, once the tide goes back out...".?..so Patrick, the tide has gone back out...are you left naked and without clothes...?...is this now making you uncomfortable, that the truth is now emerging from under cover, where it has been in hiding all this time...?

...is this the case of the Naked Emperor...?...caught with his pant down again did he...? ...and now he wants the AG Jeremie, who has already been at loggerhead with the Law Association...when they voted as having no confidence in him as the titular head of the Law Association recently, and now they have again stated categorically that he was wrong in law to make the statements he made in Parliament recently about Justice Narine...is he now pushing Jeremie up front to do his dirty work for him, as he is afraid and unable to do so, as the truth will emerge in due course...and he is afraid of the truth...?

...Abu Bakr is not going away any time soon, no more than the shadow in the dark will linger on the minds of the people...and the doubts will turn to belief, so long as Patrick is afraid to come clean with the people and openly and publicly deny the allegations in the affadavit, if he could...until that time, the charade will continue...and his credibility will continue to erode and diminish...and Patrick...the Emperor is now naked...all the clothes has been removed...and he was bathing in the nude...?...and the tide not coming back any time soon either...so keep on hiding, its getting very uncomfortable...frustration and anger now creeping in, and thats not a very good sign, remember the "pacemaker" has a best before date too...so be careful,...those eyes, they says a lot...and not good news either, before other things "pop"...and we don't want that now do we...?

...so hold strain Patrick, "the Naked Emperor" must now wait for the high tide...but no full moon, .. thats too bright, ...that way everybody could see, the truth thats is...and it will come to light, it must...after all, this is Trinidad & Tobago...the land where nobody can keep a secret for too long...or can they...???...!

...goodluck...Trini.t.o.o

 

Who believes the Attorney General?
Submitted by Tim on Thu, 24/09/2009 - 02:32.

 

Who believes the Attorney General? TV polls taken on two stations suggest that 85% of the viewers believe that the Attorney General puts Politics before Law and 95% believe that the Law Association was justified in its criticism of the Attorney General.
 
I am not convinced that the statement of the Attorney General exceeded the boundaries of permissible criticism of the judgment of Justice Narine in referring the Bakr affidavit to the DPP and the CoP for further investigation. However his remark that Judge Narine’s order was made “in defiance of the order of the Court of Appeal” is on the borderline.
 
What the Attorney General fails to appreciate is that as a politician he simply does not have the same latitude as the man in the street to criticise the Judiciary for fear that in doing so he may be seen to be seeking to intimidate and so control the Judiciary. The appropriate course in my view is for an Attorney General who is so aggrieved to take the matter up directly or lodge a private complaint.
 
The Attorney General in the face of cogent evidence to the contrary continues to maintain that Justice Narine had no jurisdiction to refer the Bakr affidavit to the DPP and the CoP for further investigation. If he genuinely believes this, it is within the power of the Attorney General to appeal the order of Justice Narine and have the matter adjudicated by the highest courts of this land.
 
In the absence of such an appeal the continuing attack on anyone, and in particular Mr. Daly, who expresses an opposing view to that of the Attorney General leads one to believe that he is really seeking to avoid the real issues at stake.
 
The heart of the matter is that the reputation of the Prime Minister has been sullied in the eyes of the Nation and it is imperative that an independent and impartial inquiry be conducted to determine the truth of the allegations. That is the only way in which the Prime Minister can seek vindication – no amount of bluff and belligerence will serve to do so.
Jumbie's picture
JJ on the attack?
Submitted by Jumbie on Thu, 24/09/2009 - 16:07.

After reading this diatribe of JJ's, I was initially going to sit back and just let it slide. After all, some are incapable of being taught.

After carefully reading it a second time, I noticed how JJ is spreading PNM propaganda in Parliament, in an effort to fool the population.

 

Let me give you an example:
He said if the Prime Minister had concerns about a person who was to fill a post of chief legal officer, the PM had a right to exercise a veto.

"The Law Association president was reported to have predicted that had the veto been challenged it would have been successfully so."

Now, if I recall clearly, the Law Association never said that the Prime Minister did not have the right to veto.

What the Law Association said was that the Prime Minister ought to explain the reasons for his veto, and that if his vetoes are challenged in court for an explanation he would be forced to reveal his reasoning for such vetoes.

 

This country faces a crisis again of considerable proportions from white-collar crime perhaps more complex and greater than any we have faced in the past—now more than ever courage is needed in all executive positions.

I could not agree more, since the white collar crime is actually runaway under the PNM (Hart/Udecott, UTT, CEPEP, CDAP, Sunway, stadiums, etc etc etc.) Hence is more important to fill the posts as quickly as possible, and not exercise veto after veto until it appears that one is searching for a 'PNM' candidate. Let's fill the posts with the next qualified candidate, turn him/her loose and let the chips fall where they may.

“We should all be cognisant of the fact that there should be a presumption that the Prime Minister will not act capriciously in making appointments to executive positions, in particular, to key executive positions.”

Will not act capriciously? Why not? What makes him greater than any other 'leader' who rises to power and wishes to retain it at all costs? As far as I see and the entire population of Trinbago (except maybe for PNM til' I dead supporters), the Prime Minister is acting capriciously. He has not given any reasons for his vetoes, nor indicated who else would be suitable for the posts. He vetoed appointments to critical positions of the Constitution, capriciously. On a 'vaps' if you understand that word better.

By the way, JJ, Barnett's opinion is that of one man, and you should not rely on it as if it is 'gospel' (regardless of your leader's Christian stance). Any number of lawyers (and laymen) can find counter points to that infantile argument.

The affidavit was struck out for being irrelevant due to to the illegality of the Prime Minister (your boss) not having the legal power to make such an agreement in the first place. The affidavit does however exists, and was referred to by all levels of the courts.

May I point out that in a civil matter, there is not yet any ruling. As an attorney, you know Civil and Criminal matters are separate, carry a different burden of proof. Must I point out to you the fate of OJ Simpson, who won a criminal trial but lost the civil?

It is time you stop using Parliamentary privilege to indulge in a war of words, and creating and promoting PNM propaganda. As I pointed out, we know why you were brought back from London.

I beg to disagree, Tim...with all due respect...!
Submitted by Trini.t.o.o on Thu, 24/09/2009 - 19:00.

...Tim, with all due respect to your views and comments, I beg to disagree.....!

...when an Attorney General stands up in Parliament and makes a statement as he did, sitting side by side with the Prime Minister of the country, we the people takes notice and lend credence to the statements he is making...especially, when the side kick commentaries were going on with Patrick at his side...so this is not a case of the "ordinary citizen" criticising the Judge...the Judiciary...this is the AG, John Jeremie, and the Government doing so...which is a no-no...as he had other alternatives to address that issue if he feels there was a need to do so...!

..no differently, when Patrick marched into the Radio Station with his "entourage of guards" to complain about the statements made about him on the radio station...and then stating he is only doing so as "an ordinary citizen"...which we all know is not the case at all...well, my friend, its the same with the AG Jeremie, he is not an ordinary soul making a complaint on the street, as any ordinary "Joe" will or can do, within limitations of the law...if anything at all, he should know better, and to that extent, the Law Association made their comments in that regard...!

...so in my view, he has lost all credibility to carry out the responsibilities of his office...its pointless for him to now come out and say that he will do so without fear or favour...the bias is so evident, he has already shown his hand...the poker game is over...anything Patrick says...goes...simple as that...not a damn dog bark...or sing for your supper...just like the rest of his pothounds...all looking for a scrap or a bone tossed their way...to do otherwise..well, crapaud smoke dey pipe...!

...goodluck...Trini.t.o.o

Navigation