Ramlogan: DPP had pointed out flaws

Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard had pointed out to Government the far-reaching implications and consequences of the controversial Section 34 in the context of certain matters, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said yesterday. Ramlogan was piloting amendments in the Senate to repeal Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (indictable Proceedings) Act following passage of the amendments in the House of Representatives on Wednesday night. Both Government and Opposition voted for the amendments following ten hours of debate. Piloting the amendments in the Senate yesterday, Ramlogan said when the DPP spoke with him recently on Section 34, the DPP pointed out the consequences were wide and far-reaching.

 

Ramlogan added: “When he (DPP) spoke to me he spoke in the context of certain matters, not directly to any matter but simply to explain what the implications and ramifications were.” He said the minute he understood what the DPP was saying he went to the Prime Minister. He said he called the PM at 4 am and the Prime Minister decided by 7 am on Tuesday to repeal Section 34. Ramlogan said with the repeal amendments, “we’ve closed the escape hatch.” He said when debate on the bill was done in the Senate last year, concerns about Section 34 were expressed by Independent Senator James Wheeler who had said it could be used as a loophole for people to evade justice. “So it was flagged,” he added.

 

He dismissed “conspiracy theories” about why Government proclaimed the section at the time it did. He said people would have been acquitted without any amendment. He said charges in the Piarco (One) case were laid in March 2002 and in the Piarco (Two) case in May 2004. “If Government had wanted to help out anyone and we went to Parliament with a bill that had seven years, then either ten years or eight years, Piarco One or Two would have been liable to be discharged. They were both in excess of the seven-year period,” he said. PNM Senator Fari Al Rawi, speaking after, said it was unfortunate direct reference to certain people and certain cases had been uttered by MPs during the debate.