Port of Spain; Today is the big day for the ruling in a lawsuit filed by United National Congress financiers Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson in the controversial Section 34 matter. Between late January and early February, Justice Mira Dean-Armorer heard arguments over several days from some of England's leading constitutional experts, is scheduled to deliver the judgment at 1.15 p.m at the Hall of Justice, in Port of Spain.
Section 34 caused widespread outrage and was condemned from various sectors of society against the Government. It led to spontaneous protest which was organized by the Joint Trade Union Movement and the Opposition People's National Movement, which got support from thousands of people marching throughout the streets requesting that the legislation be repealed. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar in turn called an emergency session of Parliament and the controversial section 34 of the act was repealed.
After conducting enquires with Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC, former justice minister Herbert Volney, MP for St Joseph, was held responsible for misleading Cabinet and as a result his ministerial appointment was revoked. Approximately 37 people and companies who had matters which were instituted ten years and older complained through a constitutional motion that the passage of the legislation deprived them of an assurance from the State before it was revoked to their detriment, two of the 37 included Mr. Galbaransingh and Mr. Ferguson.
The two are charged with a series of criminal offenses which arose out of the construction of the Piarco International Airport Development Project back in 2002. Their lawyers argued that the public's outcry over the proclamation of Section 34 led to the repeal of the law and that Parliament's decision led to an amendment which was unconstitutional and an impermissible response to public pressure.
The Lawyers also believe that Parliament should never claim not to be aware of the implications of Section 34 when the parliamentary debate in both the Lower and Upper House was examined. They argued several points but the lawyers for the state in their response, felt that none of the applicants were prejudiced by the decision of Parliament to repeal Section 34 as still had their right and fair trial guaranteed under the Constitution.
They went on to say that the public interest demanded that individuals accused of serious criminal offenses be tried for the alleged offenses based on the merits of the State's case.
You must be logged in to post a comment.