Evidence bill passed without opposition support

The government of Trinidad and Tobago on Friday passed the Evidence Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives with its strong majority. The opposition abstained in the vote, saying the bill can allow policemen to frame innocent people.

All members of the People's National Movement (PNM), including Dr Keith Rowley, voted for the bill. The nine opposition members who were present abstained.

Speaking with reporters after the House passed the measure Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday explained that the opposition abstained rather than vote against the bill because members felt it has "some commendable provisions".

However, he stressed there are also measures that were draconian.

"While we thought that there were parts of the bill which are commendable, there are certain parts of the bill which are positively draconian and can result in innocent people being hanged on the basis of evidence that has not been tested, that is not on oath, where witnesses are not called," he said.

He explained that under this bill, video and audio taped evidence can be accepted in court. He said that provides an opportunity for anyone to tamper with the tapes and since witnesses would not be required to take an oath or be cross-examined that presents a real danger.

"We know that there are policemen here that are corrupt, there are policemen here who framed people, and this legislation will facilitate the framing of innocent people," Panday said.

On Wednesday, the Government and Opposition met to discuss the bill. But Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who was part of the Opposition team, called the meeting a charade since the Government did not take any of their proposals seriously.

"From the amendments tabled, I have not seen a taking on board the proposals and concerns that we raised...not a single clause has been changed," she said.

Before the vote was taken Attorney General John Jeremie stated that the bill has several safeguards to protect citizens. He also noted that the courts would have the discretion to determine what evidence would be admissible.

Tabaquite MP Ramesh L. Maharaj was not present for the debate. But in a letter to Jeremie he raised concerns about one clause and asked Jeremie to delete Clause 6 (a) (iii) (f) and 6 (c) from the bill.

The section will allow statements of witnesses who claim to be fearful to give evidence to be admissible in evidence subject to the discretion of the Court.

"Witnesses are likely to claim that they are fearful in order to seek the benefit of not giving evidence."

He added that "convictions based on the evidence of a witness who did not give evidence and is not subject to cross examination are not likely to be upheld in the Appeal processes as being safe convictions."

Maharaj said, "This measure strikes at the root of due process of law for an accused person to be able to challenge the evidence adduced against him by cross examination of the witness. There is also a risk that a Court may find that such a provision is not reasonably justifiable in a society which has proper respect for the rights of individuals.

"Convictions obtained with the use of this provision may end up being quashed," he said.