Others made mistakes in Section 34 fiasco too
I read with great intent Clarence Rambharat's column in the Express entitled "Section 34 sinkholes".
He reminds us that the DPP in his statement indicated that, "doubtless" AG Ramlogan would have had Section 34 in mind when he decided not to appeal the court's decision in favour of Steve and Ish. This decision nullified the AG's extradition order that would allow both men to face trial in the US.
He points out that 234 days passed since the AG's announcement of this decision until Section 34 was proclaimed.
Rambharat has a habit of consistently attacking AG Ramlogan. He does so without fail in every column. It is clear that he has an axe to grind. Any objective observer/columnist will also seek to answer the following questions:
1. What was the DPP doing in those 234 days to bring this case to a conclusion? He would "doubtlessly" have also been aware of the fact that Section 34 was unanimously passed by Parliament.
2. Why did the magistrate who was trying this case allowed to take six months leave? With the Section 34 sword of Damocles hanging over their heads it was incumbent upon the DPP and the magistrate to accelerate and reach the finish line.
3. What is the explanation as to why these preliminary enquiry cases have been allowed to drag on for so many years? Who is to blame? Would Rambharat or anyone else dare to question the competence of the DPP in handling this prosecution?
It is easy to take pot shots at political figures like Ramlogan but ignore the dysfunctional establishment that may be the root cause of the problem.
People like Rambharat are sycophants who seek to ingratiate themselves with the establishment by constantly turning a blind eye to its faults whilst they remain trigger-happy against their pet peeve, AG Ramlogan.
Port of Spain