Member of Parliament for San Juan/Barataria Dr Fuad Khan has described the defeated no-confidence motion against Attorney General Anand Ramlogan as the Opposition People's National Movement's (PNM) bid to take back power.
Delivering his presentation in the Parliament on Friday night, Khan said the motion was not about Ramlogan but an Opposition strategy leading up to the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) elections.
"When we look at this motion, this motion is not about the Attorney General. The Attorney General is a smoke screen. This is an emotional wrestle for power to capture the minds of the voting public, determined and designed to bring about an emotional response to the supporters of the PNM, so that they can go into the THA election with something to talk about. Because if they are able to bring enough dirt on the Attorney General then the whole Partnership looks bad."
Khan said the Attorney General was being attacked based on Section 34, and the Opposition is saying that because of the Attorney General the proclamation of Section 34 took place and they lost confidence in him.
"Based on the motion and what is in the preamble, the Opposition is saying it is incorrect what they are saying because we all agreed to a section of a bill and we don't like it because three people may get off, then we should fire the Attorney General. That is what we are saying here Mr Speaker.
"And not only have we lost confidence in him but we should fire him, like if firing an Attorney General is a very simple thing, and we move on. Mr Speaker, it does not work like that because, you see, if it worked like that we would have been able to fire every member of the PNM government when we were in Opposition, but it does not work like that," Khan added.
He called on the public to ask themselves if they were really that angry and that upset over Section 34, adding that he was not talking to the supporters of the People's Partnership but to the people who don't belong to any sides.
"The thinking population who determine exactly which government comes into power. I ask the general population that is looking on, does that make sense? That does not make sense, because you see, Mr Speaker, at the end of the day the Attorney General is the person who is second in command where the Cabinet is concerned, and if you have an Attorney General who has done all this is work on the DNA Bill etc, you ask yourself does the motion really make sense, does it have merit? Is it really and truly a motion where an Attorney General really and truly and deliberately misled or did something untoward.
"Or was it really a political bid that seeks to gain political points for an Opposition who needs to go into an election with something in their hand. That is what you need to ask yourself," Khan said.