WHAT ABOUT THE AMNESTY?
July 29, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
Last Monday 27th July 2015, marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the attempted coup in Trinidad and Tobago.
During the takeover of parliament and the holding of the then Prime Minister and others hostage, there was a mediation effort undertaken with the consent of the State.
The result of that mediation effort was that the then Acting President of Trinidad and Tobago (the sitting President being out of the country at the time) issued a pardon to the alleged coup plotters.
The security services whose troops had surrounded the parliament were opposed to the amnesty granted. This was the mutiny within the mutiny. This delayed the release of many of the persons who were being held hostage.
Eventually, the hostages were released, and the persons alleged to have been behind the coup walked out of the parliament as free men but were later arrested and charged for treason and other criminal offences.
The men of course claimed that they were granted a pardon by the President. They therefore insisted that they should be freed. They therefore sought to enforce the amnesty.
Two sets of action were filed to enforce the amnesty that was granted. The first was a constitutional motion. The other was a Habeas Corpus pleading. It is beyond this column to go into the legal arguments that were made and decided on in relation to each of these applications.
The point is that the general amnesty that was granted could not have been claimed outside of such legal proceedings. The case ended up before the Privy Council, the final Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago.
The Privy Council upheld the appeal filed by those claiming the amnesty. The effect of the Privy Council ruling was that the general amnesty granted was valid; and it could only have been invalidated if it was procured by fraud.
I raise this case because I notice that a great many persons are getting excited by the news that charges have been recommended against certain individuals in relation to alleged attempts to transfer state-owned vehicles to private individuals.
I had previously done a column on this issue and predicted that nothing will come of this matter. I stand by my prediction, because I believe that an amnesty was given and that at the appropriate time, after the charges would have been read, this amnesty will be invoked.
When this happens, I anticipate that the case will be quashed, that is of course if an amnesty was granted in this instance.
If the DPP is not aware of the amnesty, then she cannot be faulted. If the police are not aware, then they too cannot be faulted.
But the lack of knowledge of the amnesty or pardon does not invalidate the amnesty. Once granted it stands, except if it was procured by fraud.
The question therefore is: “Was an amnesty granted?” If so, under what instrument was this limited amnesty given, and what exactly is a limited amnesty?
The Constitution provides for the President to give either a conditional or unconditional amnesty or pardon.
So was there an amnesty or pardon granted in this instance and was it issued under the hand of the President? If not, under what law was it granted?
The media does not seem keen to ask these questions. But nothing should surprise anyone about the media in Guyana. I looked at an interview between a journalist and a man who said that he was part of a death squad.
The journalist kept asking about links to named persons in the former government. But I was disappointed that he did not press the person he was interviewing about the names of any of the police that were alleged to have given the members of the death squad weapons. That is the media for you.
This is why Guyana is in the mess it is. It is not just the government that is the problem; even the media is in a mess.
So do not get excited by the news that charges are likely to be laid. For one, if there was an amnesty offered, there may be Habeas Corpus proceedings to invoke that amnesty.
If none is claimed, then the weight of the evidence against the individuals comes into play, and no one knows for sure how credible or consistent is the evidence that will be offered.