I must confess that I consider the calls for AG Anand Ramlogan to resign or to be fired, in the wake of Mr Volney's dismissal, to be unfair. Mr Volney has accepted responsibility for the error which prompted the chaos and confusion over section 34. I agree that Volney was wrong and ought to have been fired. If we are nevertheless to continue to play the blame game, let us be fair and revisit the facts:
1. The Act was passed with the approval of all of the Opposition MPs and senators, as well as the Independent senators. The first point is that there are many lawyers on the Opposition bench, Senator Ramlogan is not the legal adviser to the Parliament. Why is Ramlogan being singled out when they all made the same mistake and voted for the measure?
2. The CJ and the DPP agreed that the Act would be proclaimed on January 2nd, 2013. This means that in any event, it would have been possible to present applications under section 34 as early as January next year. The burning question which therefore continues to remain unanswered is: Early proclamation notwithstanding, why did the Opposition and Independent bench vote for section 34?
3. On December 18, 2010, the AG announced his decision not to appeal the decision of Justice Boodoosingh which quashed his extradition order of October 9, 2010. The Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament by December 9, 2011, and partially proclaimed on December 16, 2011 as Act No 20 of 2011. This means that both the DPP and the CJ would have known that the AG wanted a trial in our local courts and Section 34 could become law and prevent this when it was proclaimed. Approximately eight months had elapsed between the passage of the Act and the early proclamation of Section 34.
Why did the DPP and the Chief Magistrate not take immediate steps during that period to expedite the final stages of these high profile prosecutions? These cases have been in the system for approximately 7 1/2 years. The AG has no control over the courts and the DPP is in charge of the prosecution of the State's case against the two gentlemen.
4. The preliminary inquiry (PI) into Piarco I has been completed since January 7, 2008. The magistrate ordered the defendants to stand trial before a judge and jury since 2008 and yet the DPP has not yet laid any indictment in this matter. The DPP's explanation is that there may be some overlap with Piarco II and he therefore wishes to await the outcome of the PI into Piarco II so that he can lay one indictment in respect of both matters. The AG has indicated that he considers this explanation to be reasonable and satisfactory. I do not.
In my view, the DPP should have laid the indictment in respect of Piarco I since 2008. If the DPP had done so, by now that trial may have been completed or well advanced. If there was any duplication in the charges in Piarco II, he could have simply not preferred those particular charges in the indictment he lays or discontinue the old ones. Perhaps the DPP should resign over the fiasco that his prosecution of Ish and Steve has become.
5. Does the Hon CJ have the right to intervene in high profile matters of public interest to ensure that justice is done (one way or another)? I recall that in the prosecution of the Dole Chadee gang, the then CJ Michael de la Bastide, convened an ad hoc court in Chaguaramas. That court sat day-to-day until the trial was concluded. In fact, shortly after his decision not to appeal the judgment of Justice Boodoosingh, the AG publicly suggested that this very approach should be adopted to facilitate the interests of justice in this matter.
No steps were taken by the CJ to accelerate this PI. Instead, he approved 6 months' leave for magistrate Espinet from June 2011 to November 2011 in the knowledge that magistrate Espinet was in the final stages of this PI that had been dragging on for so many years. I find it incredible and unreasonable that six months leave could be granted in such circumstances. It would have been wiser to allow the magistrate to proceed on leave after the completion of the outstanding PI.
The learned magistrate should have been directed to give the matter some priority in light of its long and colourful history. She should have been directed to sit day-to-day until the matter was completed. The magistrate should also have been relieved of all other cases so that she could dedicate her time to this important matter. I might add that such a move is not unprecedented
6. The criticism that the AG is the legal adviser to Cabinet and not Volney in this particular case is ill-conceived. It is true that prior to the establishment of the Ministry of Justice, the AG advised the Cabinet on both criminal and civil matters.
However, upon the establishment of the Ministry of Justice, responsibility for matters relating to the criminal justice system was removed from the AG and vested in the Minister of Justice. In those circumstances, the AG and the Cabinet were fully entitled to rely on the guidance and advice of Volney in this matter. These are the facts as I see them.
Angelique de Freitas
Via e-mail