By Prior Beharry
ATTORNEY General Reginald Armour, SC, is accused of breaching the standing orders of Parliament by making a statement on the Brent Thomas case which is sub judice.
The allegations were meted out to him by the Opposition United National Congress (UNC) MPs in the House of Representatives on Wednesday when he made a ministerial statement in the matter of CV2022/04567 Brent Thomas and Specialist Shooters Training Centre Ltd vs The Attorney General & The Director of Public Prosecutions and, the judgement delivered by Justice Devindra Rampersad on April 25, 2023.
Before his statement, the Opposition called for a division in the vote to suspend the standing order to allow Armour to make his ministerial statement. They were outvoted.
Armour said: “May I say at the outset that I am constrained to be limited in what I say in this statement at this -me for the reasons which will be made clear as I proceed.
“I nevertheless make this statement because I recognise and acknowledge the legitimate concerns which arise out of that matter, exacerbated by the judgement delivered on the 25th April 2023.
“Let me add immediately, that nothing that I say here in this statement falls outside of our permitted hierarchical judicial structure, tiered (he spelt out the word) to include within the hierarchy of our Supreme Court that, Judges at first instance may make errors in the discharge of their judicial functions and, the Court of Appeal exists to correct those errors.”
But there were constant objections from the Opposition MPs who quoted standing orders 48 and 49.
Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein rose on standing order 48 (2): “The Government announced that this particular matter of Brent Thomas against the AG is on appeal.”
Deputy Speaker Esmond Forde asked Armour to shed light on the matter.
Amid crosstalk, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley rose, Couva South MP Rudranath Indarsingh asked on what standing order he was speaking.
Leader of Government Business Camille Robinson-Regis said, “The prime minister is asking a question.”
Rowley was allowed to speak by Forde. He said, “I am standing on a point of clarification Mr Deputy Speaker. I am correct to interpret that what we heard here is the same Brent Thomas in the questions section as opposed to the Brent Thomas coming here now. Could the minister clarify for us. Is it the same Brent Thomas that you say he talking about now.”
Forde asked Naparima MP Rodney if he had a concern.
Charles said, “Is it (the Thomas matter) on appeal and therefore is it sub judice.”
Forde consulted with a clerk sitting in front of him and said that he was going to allow Armour to continue his statement keeping in line with the sub judice rule as he knew what information would be forthcoming.
Armour said “This matter concerns Police Operational systems and processes in which the Executive has no role, which Police Operational systems the Executive is constitutionally required to and does respect. We know that the Commissioner of Police has ordered an investigation. That investigation must be allowed to take its course and, we all look forward to its outcome.
“In this regard, it is important to reiterate and to emphasise that which has already been said by the Honourable Prime Minister, Dr Keith Christopher Rowley, that the Executive has played no role in the events and the facts giving rise to the judgement and commented on by the Judge.
“As Attorney General however I am able to speak to this matter as I do here today by reason of my constitutional office of Attorney General. In that capacity, I am one of the named defendants in this matter, as prescribed by the Constitution, answerable for and in the promotion of the constitutional protection of the rights of our citizens, due process and, the protection of the law.
“To that extent, my knowledge of what I speak to today is informed by (a) the instructions given by the Police to the Legal Team of Attorneys representing the Office of Attorney General as a Defendant in this matter and, (b) in certain limited respects other matters which have since come into the public domain and to which I also speak.”
Despite numerous objections by the Opposition, Forde said Armour knows the road he was going down and allowed him to speak.
Armour admitted that he has filed an appeal against the judgement in the matter and said that he has asked that it be given priority over all other cases.
Charles again objected. He said, “The honourable Attorney General has said that he has put the case on appeal and if it is on appeal he cannot talk about the substantive merits of the case.
His objection was overruled by Forde.
Armour replied, “For the record Mr Deputy Speaker I will not speak to the details of the appeal which has been filed except to say that so urgent is the need for a definite final appellate adjudication in this matter that I have already given instructions to London solicitors to retain English counsel from the outset so that that counsel may become immediately and fully appraised of this matter working without team of local attorneys so as to become fully up to speed…”
Charles said that members cannot comment on any person including a judge as the AG said a judge could make an error.
Armour admitted that in the High Court, the State conceded that the return of Thomas from Barbados was unlawful and effected outside the extradition process provided for by the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, Ch. 12:04 of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.
Chaguanas West MP Dinesh Rambally said, “The honorable Attorney General is creating a real risk of prejudicing the merits of this matter. Mr Deputy Speaker, he is going down a road of challenging aspects of the first instance judge. That is what he is doing he is abusing ministerial statements.”
He was overruled.
Then Couva South MP asked if the House was allowing the AG to abuse the Parliament by his ministerial statement.
Ranbally said, “Mr Dpeuty Speaker we as speaking about the merits of the judgement. The AG can’t dissect what is convenient for him…,” his mic was turned off.
Armour also apologised to Barbados for the “slur” cast on its police.
He said, “I offer the government and the Royal Barbados Police Force my apologies for the slur which has been cast on the actions of the Royal Barbados Police Force who, consistent with the law and their oaths of office, were assisting the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service to the best of their ability in the investigation of alleged crimes, in seeking to bring an alleged fugitive to justice.”
