PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley yesterday rubbished a statement by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad- Bissessar that she had been vindicated following a ruling by the London-based Privy Council to dismiss an application challenging the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) (Amendment) Act.

Several people and businesses here had gone to the Privy Council, the country’s highest court, claiming that the legislation was unconstitutional because it breached either the principle of the separation of powers, or the principle of the rule of law.

“This decision puts to rest, by a judgement of our highest court, the criticisms of the then Opposition of the actions of the People’s Partnership Government. The reasons behind the passing of Section 34 in its original incarnation remain valid,” Persad Bissessar said in a statement Monday.

“The legality and constitutionality of the action of the Government I led in passing the repeal legislation has been tested and affirmed at each level of our judicial system,” she added.

But in a statement, Prime Minister Rowley said that with respect to the recent ruling at the Privy Council, “the simple outcome is that persons who are charged with criminal offences will be made to face a trial, despite all attempts to do otherwise.

“This being the undisputed fact then, the public utterances of the Opposition leader claiming vindication is insulting to the population.

“I want to remind Mrs Persad-Bissessar that it is a Government which she led that produced legislation into which Section 34 was buried, with the intention of creating an opening for persons to avoid a trial.”

The legislation is best known here for the controversial Section 34 that critics said was tabled by the Persad-Bissessar Government to ensure that Ish Gallbaransigh and Steve Fergusson, financiers of the then ruling United National Congress (UNC) — the biggest partner in the four-member coalition People’s Partnership Government — were freed of charges relating to the re-development of the Piarco International Airport.

They are also wanted in the United States on a number of related charges.

The alleged offences all took place before 2002 and two sets of criminal proceedings were commenced against the appellants in 2002 and 2004, neither of which has yet gone to trial.

Fergusson and businessman Ameer Edoo and three companies had challenged the decision of the Parliament to repeal Section 34 of the legislation.

The two, along with several other men and companies filed applications at the High Court to have several fraud-related charges against them dismissed. The appellants had contended that the repeal of the section had breached separation of power principles and that of legitimate expectation.

In October 2012, Parliament repealed Section 34 of the Act that had the effect of allowing people, whose trial has not started after a 10-year period, to walk free and a verdict of not guilty entered against their names.

Persad-Bissessar dismissed her then Justice Minister, Herbert Volney, a former High Court judge, on the grounds that he misled Cabinet into believing that the Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard had supported the idea of the early proclamation of Section 34.

In his statement, Rowley reminded the population that it was the People’s Partnership Government “which gave assurances to the Parliament, then promptly ignored them, and it was a Cabinet led by her which secretly proclaimed Section 34 in the middle of the night during the country’s 50th Anniversary of Independence celebrations.

“This conspiratorial proclamation had one singular objective and it was to give persons the opportunity to escape the court trial.

“It was when they were caught red-handed, and in the face of public outrage at the actions of her Cabinet, that the Government was forced back to the Parliament and with PNM (People’s National Movement) support was made to undo what she had secretly proclaimed.”.

Rowley said that now that the Privy Council has ruled, the action of the Parliament in undoing the effects of the original conspiracy “is no vindication of the People’s Partnership Government”.

“Instead it is a stark reminder that the action of the Parliament was proper and justified and it is a signal of the failure on her part. It is a reminder of the disgraceful saga of Section 34 and the shame that hangs indelibly around the necks of her Cabinet that was caught and rejected,” he said.

In its 19-page ruling, the Privy Council said, “What Parliament gives, Parliament may take away provided that it does so consistently with the Constitution.

“It follows that the Amending Act is a valid enactment,” the Privy Council ruled.