2 former T&T AGs slam Warner over race statement

(Trinidad Express) Congress of the People (COP) leader and Minister of Legal Affairs Prakash Ramadhar went to see former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj a few weeks ago, Maharaj disclosed yesterday.

Attempts to contact Ramadhar were unsuccessful, but Maharaj said that Ramadhar knew there was “massive” corruption in the Government and he came to see him. However, Maharaj described the People’s Partnership Government as an “eat ah food” Cabinet in which no one was prepared to speak out against the wrongs.

Maharaj and another former attorney general, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, appeared as guests on the I.95 FM programme “Showdown” yesterday.

Both Maharaj and Hudson-Phillips criticised National Security Minister Jack Warner for saying that the marchers in last Friday’s protest action in Port of Spain came from one ethnic group.

Hudson-Phillips said Warner’s statements were “highly unfortunate, divisive, and patronising. He should not have gone there. One hopes that is not the agenda of the Government”.

Maharaj said Warner’s statement was a “denigration” of Afro-Trinidadians.

“What Mr Warner and the Government are saying is this: ‘We are an Indo-dominated party, our support base is Indo-Trinidadians…they support us and they didn’t come out’.”

Maharaj said the Government was being “provocative” in a multi-racial society.

Hudson-Phillips said he was alarmed at the “flippancy” with which the Government was treating a very “volatile situation”.

“There is a questioning, challenging mood in the country today, bordering on anger and that is a very incendiary situation which I don’t wish to inflame further,” he said.

Maharaj said the COP members in the Cabinet should have insisted that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fire Attorney General Anand Ramlogan for his role in the Section 34 fiasco.

“When Mr Prakash Ramadhar as head of the COP makes a statement how could you believe him? How could you believe what the COP stood for? As a matter of fact all of them had a duty to tell the Prime Minister that ‘if you do not fire the Attorney General we are going to resign from the Cabinet’. But I am sorry to state this…but it is ‘ah eat ah food’ Cabinet. Mr Prakash Ramadhar knows that this (the Section 34 affair) is not only corrupt, but that there is massive corruption in the Government. Mr Ramadhar came to see me a few weeks ago. He knows that (there is corruption). But they do not want to stand up. They are not prepared to put country first,” Maharaj stated.

While Maharaj said Section 34 was a deliberate act, Hudson-Phillips said he could not say it was a deliberate act, but added: “The empirical evidence seems to suggest it was not an accident.”

On the role of the Attorney General on the Section 34 matter, Hudson-Phillips said the Gazette of June 16, 2010 gave several Ministers the responsibility for Parliament matters. Under this gazette the Prime Minister had responsibility for constitutional matters, parliamentary affairs and proceedings of the State, he said. The Attorney General had responsibility for law reform, for legal advice to the Government and legislative drafting.

He added that the Justice Minister had responsibility for criminal legislation, reform and transformation, quicker justice; while the Minister for Legal Affairs was given law revision, intellectual property, consumer affairs etc.

“But what you have to understand is that all the ministries of the Government are the clients of the Attorney General. He is their legal advisor. Whatever responsibility may be given to them to do specific things, he is the lawyer for the Government. So the policy may be developed in a particular Ministry but when it comes to translating that policy into legal drafting, it has to be sent to the Ministry of the Attorney General..for legal drafting.”

Hudson-Phillips compared the Section 34 fiasco to the situation with the Public Order Act while he was attorney general.

“If even you are not personally responsible for it, if the error takes place within your portfolio remit, proper ministerial conduct suggests that you should take that problem with you out of the Cabinet,” he said.

He said in 1970 when the population objected to the form of the Public Order Act and there was serious public debate and dissent, the Attorney General offered his resignation to the Prime Minister.

Not that he was responsible for the policy but “the drafting took place in my Ministry so I had to accept the responsibility,” he said.

He added that this conduct was what was required under the Westminster system of government.

“A Prime Minister should not have to dismiss, a Minister should walk.”

Hudson-Phillips also explained why he has kept silent on the Section 34 affair, until now.

He said he gave advice to “certain Members of Parliament when attempts were being made to have this issue corrected (the repeal of Section 34). And I don’t think it would be right for me to comment on the details as opposed to the process”.

Hudson-Phillips said there was a crisis in the society in which Section 34 was just a trigger. He said the crisis was not just about Section 34.

“It is a general crisis of silence, a crisis of diffidence and a failure to speak out,” he said.