Tony Fraser's column of March 9, very casually and without foundation asserted that "the refusal by the PNM to support the 'Hanging Bill' (so called) is obstructionist and merely designed to thwart the efforts of the Government."The application of the word "obstructionist" suggests an ulterior or bad intention; an irrational position arrived at on the basis of matters unrelated to the core issues under debate.This picture, as painted by Fraser, demonstrates that he either did not or perhaps could not follow the very cogent and rational arguments advanced and outlined by the Opposition PNM in the Parliament and outside.
Fraser completely disregarded the fact that we made several recommendations to the Government in respect of the bill, when it was presented, and that the Government very appreciatively adopted the logic in support of these recommendations and amended the bill accordingly.Fraser was at the very least expected to have recognised and understood that in doing this the PNM saved the country (or rather, those who favour the application of the death penalty) from the coalition's proposals and that these proposals would have effectively made hanging virtually impossible.We offered the example of Jamaica, with respect to the effect the Government's proposal to categorise murders on the savings provision in our Constitution.
We recommended that they do not repeat the legislative mistake that Jamaica made in that regard.He then wantonly wrote, "When the Government acceded to its demands, the PNM found cover in the argument that the amendments needed to be put in a separate bill and this was notwithstanding the fact that several senior attorneys and the Privy Council had advised that amending the Constitution was the more effective option."Firstly, while the Attorney General spoke of these opinions by the senior attorneys, the PNM did not have the benefit of perusing these opinions and was therefore not in a position to comment upon them, albeit having the benefit of other advice and opinions.
Secondly, why did the Government not arrange serious discussions on this important matter before the presentation of the bill? Were they serious? Both sides have had discussions on less pressing issues.Thirdly, the Privy Council never stated that to so do was the more effective option. Finally, both sides agreed on what was to be done; the only difference was how should the amendment be effected.
We put forward a suggestion that a separate bill, to limit the time the convicted killer consumed as he sought a review to the international human-rights bodies to 18 months, as it relates to the calculation of the limit set out in the Pratt and Morgan case.On the other hand the Government held the view that this should be done by amending the Constitution. Both sides have put forward cogent reasons.
So when Fraser very breezily suggests that "even if the Government had once again given in to PNM demands, the Opposition would have required further concessions to prevent the Government from looking good," he did not consider that we sought no "concessions," but what we did was to point out serious pitfalls, which the Government saw, accepted and adopted.In closing, Fraser must be in possession of an unusually huge crystal ball, which permitted him to have foreseen what the PNM would have done if the Government had further given in to PNM demands.