Independent Senator Elton Prescott yesterday disagreed with acting President Timothy Hamel-Smith's description of Section 34 as "bad law" and maintained his stance that the law should not have been repealed. He said that while contributing to a panel discussion, entitled Section 34: Dealing With The Issues, at the University of the West Indies' St Augustine campus yesterday. The other members of the panel included political scientist Bishnu Ragoonath, Leader of Government Business Dr Roodal Moonilal and Opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi.
Gov't takes more lick for section 34
The session was moderated by Prof Selwyn Ryan. Prescott added that people who made applications under Section 34 would challenge the repeal, adding: "They will win. Repealing Section 34 was a bad decision. There was nothing wrong with the amendment. An application would have had to have been made to a judge and the decision would have been up to the judge. "When it came up for repeal, I had the view that it was good law, not by any means flawed."
Al-Rawi agreed that the repeal would be challenged in court. He said: "The horse has bolted. The constitutionality of the repealing of the legislation is going to be challenged. "The contributions made in Parliament by the Prime Minister and specifically Anil Roberts spoke to a conspiracy theory," added Al-Rawi, who agreed the law was not a bad one.
He said the Opposition supported the repeal in order to put the original intent of Parliament back on course, but also agreed that the law itself was good. The questions after the discussion followed one theme:?the questions unanswered by the Government.
One member of the audience asked why, when assurances had been given in Parliament that the bill would not be proclaimed yet, it was proclaimed with such haste. Independent Senator Corinne Baptiste-McKnight asked how people could go before a judge to make an application before the legal notice was made. Attorney Gregory Delzin said the real concern was the Government's failure to address the real issue.
He added:?"I did not vote for a Government to avoid the real issue, and I voted for this Government. "The issue is and has always been and has not satisfied the population, why the early proclamation of Section 34?" "There has been no explanation as to the failure and negligence of the Attorney General, who I consider to be the head pointman in this issue."
Delzin's concerns were addressed by Moonilal, who repeated Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's explanation that the Cabinet had been led to believe the Chief Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions had approved early proclamation. Moonilal added: "It is unusual for a member of Cabinet to pick up a phone and to enquire of the CJ: did he really say this?"
"The issue fell to us and we responded to it. We acted on good faith in regard to the representation made." Moonilal said there were lessons to be learnt. "What remedies? What administration and institutional recommendations are to be made to ensure that nothing like this happens again?" he asked.