Not for the first time Attorney General, Anand Ramlogan, has saved the day for the People's Partnership government. Had Justice Dean-Armorer decided differently, Government would have been on a sticky wicket and, who knows, it might have been back to the polls.
I therefore find it distressing that parliamentarians who knowingly contributed to the Section 34 oversight would still be holding back from thanking the Attorney General for saving their skins.
If elections were called, we, the people, would have blamed them all, without exception, and demanded an entirely new party altogether to present itself for consideration.
That's why all the Rowleys, Al Rawis, Hinds, Beckles and Imberts must hush. When Section 34 was being debated, they all voted for it; when the DPP belatedly pointed out certain persons would walk free due to Section 34, they pretended they didn't.
After the Prime Minister did the right thing—quickly summon Parliament to correct the oversight—they tried to make out to repeal was illegal and that the court would never uphold it, because it was targetted at a few specific individuals.
They voted to repeal it anyway.
The court has ruled in the Attorney General's favour. Despite that, these fish and fowl politicians still insist the matter ain't finish yet. It's like if they're all a bunch of masochists.
I distinctly remember Senator Faris Al Rawi carrying on in the Senate—on September 13th last year—that the repeal of Section 34 would lead to a stinging defeat for the Government when challenged in the courts and that taxpayers would have to fork out hundreds of millions to settle.
That's why all the Rowleys, Al Rawis, Hinds, Beckles and Imberts must hush. When Section 34 was being debated, they all voted for it; when the DPP belatedly pointed out certain persons would walk free due to Section 34, they pretended they didn't.
After the Prime Minister did the right thing—quickly summon Parliament to correct the oversight—they tried to make out to repeal was illegal and that the court would never uphold it, because it was targetted at a few specific individuals.
They voted to repeal it anyway.
The court has ruled in the Attorney General's favour. Despite that, these fish and fowl politicians still insist the matter ain't finish yet. It's like if they're all a bunch of masochists.
I distinctly remember Senator Faris Al Rawi carrying on in the Senate—on September 13th last year—that the repeal of Section 34 would lead to a stinging defeat for the Government when challenged in the courts and that taxpayers would have to fork out hundreds of millions to settle.
Now that the court has rejected every single argument put forward by Steve Ferguson and others and ordered them to pay costs, instead of eating humble pie and congratulating his Senior in the counselling business, Al Rawi's unusually quiet, as if he wasn't present personally to hear Justice Dean-Armorer deliver her judgement.
Anand Ramlogan, SC, is definitely one of, if not the best, to have occupied office of Attorney General.
In the pursuit of the wider public interest he has demonstrated complete fearlessness of challenging the status quo. Do you remember the BAE arbitration matter?
I strongly recommend to our fish and fowl politicians to realize a prophet walks among us and to grant the man the honour he's due. The litany of accolades can begin by naming the proposed Southern Law School after him.
Humphrey Diefenthaller, La Horquette, Trinidad.
Anand Ramlogan, SC, is definitely one of, if not the best, to have occupied office of Attorney General.
In the pursuit of the wider public interest he has demonstrated complete fearlessness of challenging the status quo. Do you remember the BAE arbitration matter?
I strongly recommend to our fish and fowl politicians to realize a prophet walks among us and to grant the man the honour he's due. The litany of accolades can begin by naming the proposed Southern Law School after him.
Humphrey Diefenthaller, La Horquette, Trinidad.
No comments:
Post a Comment