Hanging bill defeated in T&T

(Trinidad Express) By a vote of 29 for/11 against, the “hanging bill” was guillotined in the House of Representatives on Monday, as it failed to secure the requisite support from the Opposition PNM to become law. The bill required a three-fourths majority, which mathematically works out to exactly 31.5 in the 41-member Parliament or 32 votes.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar at a press conference in Parliament on Monday following defeat of the Constitution (Amendment) (Capital Offences) Bill 2011. (Trinidad Express photo)

“The bill has not met that requirement, so as such it is defeated,” House Speaker Wade Mark declared on Monday, bringing an end to a debate which was marked by strident criticisms, particularly from the Government side.

A last-minute attempt by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to meet with Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley to work out a consensus position was rejected by Rowley. The bill had been brought to amend the Constitution to make special provision with respect to capital offences.

Rowley had earlier asked Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, during his wind up, to say whether he was prepared to draft a separate bill dealing with the petitions to international bodies and not have it as part of the current bill, which is an amendment to the Constitution.

When the Prime Minister attempted to respond, Rowley snapped: “I am not talking to you, I am talking to the Attorney General.” This caused uproar on the Government benches.

Ramlogan, riding on that momentum, declared: “Unlike the split in political personalities on that side, when you speak to the Attorney General, you are speaking to the Honourable Prime Minister.”

He added that the PNM had one leader, one want-to-be leader and one leader coming up in the flanks so one did not know who to talk to in that party.

Ramlogan said the PNM had taken this serious debate on hanging and transformed it into a “political gayelle”, in which MPs were trying to outdo each other because their internal election campaign was coming.

But by the time the committee stage (final stage of the debate) began, Persad-Bissessar wanted to talk. She indicated that she had tried to meet Rowley before the start of the sitting and was advised that he was in caucus. She was therefore asking that the House be suspended so that they (Government and Opposition) could meet then.

Rowley hit back, however, that “my understanding is that your Attorney General has spoken for you” so there was no need to further discussion.

“Mr Speaker, through you, we see this measure as an important measure and should it be that the honourable leader has taken the words in that regard it is most unfortunate, because at the end of the day it would be innocent people of this land who would suffer,” she said.

Earlier, Attorney General Ramlogan said that for every murdered person and every murderer that escapes the hangman’s noose, the PNM must be held responsible. He said he had tried the “diplomatic, friendly route” to give the PNM support, but it had failed to rise to the occasion because its political concern was not to “make the People’s Partnership look good”.

“It is political hooliganism of the worse kind … holding an entire country to ransom and standing in the way of a vision …” Ramlogan said, condemning the PNM “political obstructionism”.

The Attorney General, however, during the course of his wind up, made another amendment which the PNM asked for, which was to give a convicted murderer 18 months, as opposed to 12 months, for his petition to the Human Rights Commission to be heard.

Ramlogan cited a number of legal authorities—Martin Daly, Russell Martineau and Fenton Ramsahoye—as well as the very Privy Council, who advised that the best way to pass legislation designed to do what the bill hoped to do, was to amend the Constitution explicitly, rather than pass separate legislation, in the way the PNM was advocating. He noted that such advice was sought and received by PNM while in office and they failed to act on that advice.