The substantive President is back in town and is now asking the PM for an account on the premature proclamation of Section 34.
The PM has adequately dealt with this matter through the acting President at the time due to the absence of our substantive President. If Prof Richards wants to know about Section 34 the first person to enquire from is the acting President at the time and not the PM. After that, if he still needs clarification he should enquire of the PM privately and not publicly.
If, however, the President really wants to get down to Section 34 he should be inquiring of the PM how come Section 34 was introduced in the first place, period.
In their quest for political points Dr Rowley and David Abdulah are only focusing on the early proclamation and not on the bad law it has proven to be.
We are also hearing that in the consultation with the lawyers that Section 34 as passed was something entirely opposite to what was discussed and the changes took place during the debate in the Parliament.
Section 34 was a crime against the people and all 71 MPs must be made to account.
So far it is COP Leader Prakash Ramadhar and one independent senator who have openly admitted that Section 34 was a bad law while the entire Opposition still flogging a dead horse in the early proclamation.
Section 34 was tailor-made to set free those suspected of white-collar crime in T&T since it takes forever for such crimes to be detected, thus paving the way for the white collar criminals to go free as in the Piarco matter.
What His Excellency should seriously consider is the setting up of a public enquiry privately so those in the know can come forward and expose Section 34 for what it really is. He doesn't need the PM's permission to do this and I am sure he can squeeze some funds here and there to facilitate this.