The House of Representatives unanimously approved amendments to repeal the "oversight" of the controversial Section 34 in the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences)?Act on Wednesday night. Opposition PNM MPs present, including PNM?leader Keith Rowley, all voted for the amendments-which were further amended with PNM recommendations-at 11.25 pm, after ten hours of heated debate. It was a count of 35 MPs-all those present in the House-who voted for the amendments. Opposition?Whip Marlene McDonald, when voting, said, "Now that you (Government) have taken on board our suggestion-Yes." PNM MP?Colm Imbert, in voting, added, "We've made our best effort to plug the loophole. Yes." After the debate, McDonald told the T&T Guardian that MPs had repealed the offending section and implemented clauses that will stave off any expectations, making the situation retroactive to when the parent bill was passed on December 16, 2011.
McDonald added: "So together with our recommendations also, by taking it back in time, whatever applications that are inside now, based on that, will not be heard. So I'm satisfied with the outcome." The overall act was intended to end preliminary inquiries in the magistrates court. Section 34, however, allowed for applications to be made for a case to be thrown out and the accused freed if more than ten years had passed since the offence.
Section 34 had caused widespread concern and anger. Reports were also that businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson, facing fraud charges on the Piarco Airport project, might have been able to go free because of Section 34. In Wednesday's debate to repeal Section 34, Government MPs moved to deal with what Attorney General Anand Ramlogan called an "oversight" by the entire Parliament-Government, Opposition and Independent senators-who voted for the bill. He submitted three amendments which he said would block any challenges to the State.
McDonald, the last PNM speaker, said Government MPs had not explained why the section was proclaimed on August 31 or on what grounds, and why it was proclaimed ahead of other clauses of the act. Justice Minister Herbert Volney, who initially piloted the bill, explained various points in his contribution. He said he was the one who decided to have the bill proclaimed by August 31, since it was intended at that time to set the stage for full implementation of the act's provisions on January 2. Volney said when the uproar over Section 34 arose, the Prime Minister felt that repeal of the provision was the way to go. "And I support this," he said. Attorney?General Anand Ramlogan said no one would have batted an eyelid if applications via Section 34 had been made by by two average citizens rather than people who were now the subject of focus.