The Evidence Amendment Bill, which was passed yesterday by Government’s majority vote in Parliament, has flaws which can even facilitate policemen framing innocent people, says Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday.

At the Parliament sitting when the vote was taken, the nine Opposition MPs who were present abstained.

All Government MPs, including former minister Dr Keith Rowley, voted in favour of the bill, which required a three-fifths majority, which the Government has.

At a news conference which followed, Panday explained the Opposition did not vote against the bill but rather abstained because they believe there were some commendable provisions. However, he stressed there are also measures that were draconian.

Said Panday, ’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 explained that under this bill, evidence can be given through videotaping and pointed out these tapes can be tampered with, that witnesses would not be required to take an oath or be cross-examined.

’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, a team from the Government met with a team from the Opposition to discuss the bill and come to some agreement.

Deputy Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who was part of the Opposition team, yesterday charged the meeting was a charade as 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 passage of the bill, Attorney General John Jeremie assured the Opposition there were several safeguards in place to protect citizens.

He highlighted a number of them as he stressed the courts would have the discretion to determine what evidence would be admissible.

’It is new, it is revolutionary, but there are safeguards to protect the rights of the citizens,’ Jeremie said.

He further assured that the Government stands committed to the legislation and the draft rules were being prepared in an advanced state.