Letter: PNM supported bill that allows Ish, Steve cases to be dismissed

The editors of our local daily newspapers have earned my deepest respect and admiration a long time now, because they have consistently shown they are on the ball in pointing out what our "authorities" are doing and where our "authorities" have failed us.

This morning (Sunday) again, the Sunday Guardian has reconfirmed that respect and admiration are not wasted, because I am reading where the Guardian has now brought it to our attention what will happen now that The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 is in effect.

A lot of time, effort and taxpayers' money will now go down the drain because, as the article says, the Piarco scandal matter will be dismissed because the Act says "On an application by the accused, a Judge shall discharge an accused if the proceedings were instituted prior to the coming into force of this Act and the trial has not commenced within seven years after the proceedings were instituted, except (a) in the case of matters listed in Schedule 6; or (b) where the accused has evaded the process of the Court and the trial on indictment has, for that reason, not commenced."

I had to rub my eyes to make sure I was reading right and take another sip of morning coffee to clearly understand the quotation. 

The coffee certainly worked better than the rub eye, because I suddenly remembered that I had followed that debate on the parliament channel since I was at home at the time on "forced holidays", thanks to the State of Emergency, so had little else to do but watch tv, and paid close attention to what the opposition would have to say because the government needed the opposition support to get the bill through parliament. 

And it was something that mp Imbert said which made me begin jotting down the points the mps were making in a new copybook.

I still have the copybook. It's on top the tv still. When I checked it, I'm seeing what I scribbled. Mind you, I was jotting down as the different mps were talking, so I will quote how I wrote. "18 November 2011: parliament debate mp Imbert speaking, lashed out at the PP for saying bill was their idea, not the PNM's; said PNM came up with the bill; stated exact date PNM drafted bill: 5 July 2009; said public aware as info already out there".

I put my own comment after that. My comment was, "Factcheck that."
I haven't gotten around to doing that, but mp Imbert would not have made up that knowing he was being recorded.

But that was not the end of the involvement of mp Imbert and the PNM in making sure the bill was passed. The bill needed a special majority to become law. 

The PNM had to support it else it would have flopped. If anybody is to be blamed for what happens as a result of the bill becoming law, it will the PNM who has to take all the licks. They had the power to say no to the PP. They said yes instead. 

The newspaper report this morning should have highlighted that, instead of suggesting a main reason for the bill was to get certain persons off the hook.

I don't think I am offtrack in pulling up the publisher at all, because when I continue checking my copybook notes, I'm seeing where mp Imbert was the one who objected to a tiny but major amendment the Prime minister herself made to the part of the act the Guardian talks about this morning. 

If mp Imbert and the PNM had agreed to the amendment, the Guardian would have had to find another story for their frontpage today, for my copybook jottings about the debate also tell me:
"CTTEE STAGE
PM KPB: propose 34.2. amend to say 10 instead of 7.
Imbert: why 10? Copycat from somewhere else? Why 10?
Volney: No. Paradigm shift, want 2b conservative @ 1st, start with 10yrs, lessen after iaw how it works out.
KPB (surprised look): U proposing we stick with 7yrs?
Imbert: Yes. Don't kno why u want 2 amend it. 10yrs long time 4 ppl 2 wait betw charge & trial.
KPB: U'll vote yes if stay with 7?
Imbert: Yes.
KPB: 4d whole bill?
Imbert (testy now): U hear us say we opposing bill?
KPB: Ok. We'll stick with 7. I withdraw amendment.
I haven't had the chance to go to parliament and compare my copybook scribblings against the official record of what happened in parliament that day, but I am pretty sure what I wrote down is what in fact happened.

So while I congratulate the Guardian for keeping a sharp eye on the guards, I must not go overboard with my praises because this is one time the Guardian didn't give us the true reason why certain persons would be able to walk away scotfree as a result of the new law. 

My copybook tells me it's the PNM, especially mp Imbert, who must take all the blame. Maybe I better make copies of my copybook and sell?

Heston Corbie | 69 Prizgar Lands, Laventille.
hestoncorbie@gmail.com