Rowley defends Al-Rawi against UNC claims he let bad laws pass

THE Prime Minister has come to the defence of former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi, whose legislative agenda has come under scrutiny by the Opposition, which is claiming he presided over the passage of bad laws in the last six years.

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar contended on Monday night that the rift between Al-Rawi and Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC) Ian McIntyre, SC, over the way laws were drafted could mean Parliament may have passed bad laws.

Identifying nine laws from which the special-majority clause was removed, Persad-Bissessar said a legal challenge will be mounted to get those laws struck down, as they were badly passed.

On a People’s National Movement (PNM) platform at the Pleasantville Community Centre, San Fernando, on Tuesday night, Rowley challenged Persad-Bissessar to go ahead. He told her to mount the challenge in her name and not use “men of straw” to do so.

He said the Opposition loved the courthouse as a means of getting its way when it could not do so in Parliament, as Government had the majority, and he was anxiously awaiting that day in court.

He sought to explain the rationale for special and simple majorities for passing legislation and the proper and legitimate procedure which followed.

“If you bring a law to the Parliament to do something and that law does not offend the Constitution by interfering with certain rights, that law can be properly passed by the Government and the Government alone.

“If, on the other hand, what you propose to do requires interfering with those fundamental rights, the law has to say so, and if it is found to be so, then you require a special majority. If the law is passed without that majority, then that law is faulty and can be struck down.

“So if we try to do something – say to put 1,000 people in this room, and that is against the Constitution, and the Opposition will not support it to give a special majority – you know what? We would put 80 people in the room, and if the law allows 80 people be put in the room without offending the Constitution, what do you need a special majority for?

"You only need the law passed by a special majority if you have in that law some provision that offends certain fundamentals in the Constitution.

“But this senior counsel is going to go to court to strike down all the laws that Faris passed.

"Well, Faris does not pass any laws in the country, eh. It is the Cabinet that authorise the law to come to the Parliament and it is the parliamentarians that pass it.”

Persad-Bissessar said the special-majority requirement was removed from several pieces of legislation which affected the fundamental rights of citizens.

She identified among others, the Anti-Gang (Amendment) Act No. 4 of 2021;the Interception of Communications (Amendment) Act No 13 of 2020, which would have breached privacy rights as it meant intercepting communications by e-mail, WhatsApp, or phone; the Miscellaneous Provisions Act No. 8 of 2017; Income Tax Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018; Evidence (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2021; and the Public Procurement Disposal of Public Property Act No. 27 of 2020.

She said MacIntyre told a joint select committee the "very dangerous" Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill required a special majority, but he was sent on leave.

She said when it was brought back the requirement of a three-fifths majority was put in, but it required a three-quarters or 100 per cent majority for passage, as it dealt with the removal of people's rights to go to court.