Mickela Panday devoted half her Sunday Guardian column to criticizing me for leading the legal team that successfully challenged the constitutional validity of the Bail (Amendment) Act No 7 of 2015 which amended S 5 (5) of the Bail Act in the recent case of Justin Charles v The Attorney General.
She said “Equally bizarre – some would say outrageous – was the fact, not commented on by anyone, that lead counsel in the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act was the previous AG, who had been in that position when the Act was passed.”
This Act was in fact passed on April 29, 2015. I demitted the office of Attorney General on February 1, 2015. I was therefore not a Member of Parliament (far less the Attorney General), when this Act was debated and passed. It is far more “bizarre and outrageous” to say the least that Ms Panday (herself an Attorney), did not bother to do any basic research to check the facts before launching her tirade.
A cursory glance at the very first paragraph of the judgment of the High Court or the parliament website would have sufficed, but perhaps Ms Panday’s weekly zeal to attack the UNC got the better of her and she inadvertently mislead the public about the premise of her arguments.
Anand Ramlogan, SC