No-confidence motion against AG set for Oct 26
The Opposition motion of censure against the Attorney General Anand Ramlogan will come up for debate in the House of Representatives on Friday, October 26.
The motion, which has been approved by House Speaker Wade Mark, calls on the House to express its loss of confidence in the Attorney General and to call on the Prime Minister to "immediately relieve him of the portfolio of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago".
It also asked the House to express its strongest disapproval of the flagrant breach of parliamentary trust by the Attorney General's involvement in the premature proclamation of Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.
The motion filed by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley notes that the Attorney General participated in the presentation to Parliament of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) bill which contained a clause that created an amnesty for certain legal proceedings, referred to as Section 34; that the Attorney General had knowledge of and supported the Government's solemn undertaking to Parliament that no part of the Bill would be brought into force until such time as all supporting rules, administrative and physical infrastructure were in place and stakeholders consulted.
The motion noted in the absence of the discharge of this undertaking, the Attorney General had knowledge of and/or involvement in the unexpected proclamation of Section 34, thereby prematurely bringing into force an amnesty with consequences for certain legal proceedings involving certain persons (which it does not name).
The persons involved are Ishwar Galbaransingh, Steve Ferguson and others who were accused of bid-rigging in the Piarco project and who qualified for the amnesty against prosecution set out in Section 34.
The motion also noted that the Attorney General had previously made certain decisions in an extradition matter involving certain persons. It said the Attorney General however had accepted no responsibility for the improper discharge of his constitutional duties.