No
matter how much he tries to camouflage it, the political affiliation of NEWS
SPIN Boss has apparently overcome his mental faculties! His Newsspin programme
on Wednesday amply evidenced that.
When the News Spin Boss best political friend (and comedian from Dennery) called to make a
case for the impeachment of Kenny in the Grynberg matter, he allowed him
unlimited latitude; there was hardly an attempt to bring him in check. In fact,
I got a veiled impression that the intercourse between them was by and large stage-managed!
My
view was substantiated when the next two callers (who were far more impartial
and less passionate) phoned in to rebuff the comedian; the Boss immediately went
rabid and “in the full view” of public’s ear nakedly attempted to dishonorably discredit
them.
According
to Boss, the subject was “twas caviary to the general” for a restaurateur and
Taxi driver to partake. He promptly dismissed them as “conceptually incapable”
of making a contribution to the discussion because they were not lawyers he
claimed. (What a position by a journalist whose verified competencies continue
to remain a mystery!)
The
Boss constantly proclaims to be a “believer” in facts; and he generally demands
facts from his listeners to corroborate their claims. Unfortunately, he is highly
selective in the application of his own principle; and does not seem to generally
subscribe to it.
His
apparent attempt to re-frame Grynberg into a “Rochamel II” – after “Rochamel I”
self-destruct(ed) - is a case in point. It is apparent that he has not taken time
to thoroughly ground himself in the facts and the law surrounding Rochamel II;
so he continues to play games with his listeners and in the process blissfully
courts potentially lethal legal claims “skirting the issue”, as was the case
with his comedian from Dennery.
The
fact is, based on the Interpretation Act of 2001, the PM did have the authority to sign the “Rochamel II” contract and I’ll
soon provide the evidence; but let us first look at what the Minerals Vesting
Act (2001) says, with reference to granting licences:
|
4. Prohibition of
prospecting and mining except by licence
(1) A person shall not prospect for or mine any minerals except by
authority of a licence granted by the Governor General and in accordance with
the terms and conditions specified in the licence.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of
this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding $1,000 and to a further fine not exceeding $50 for each day
during which the contravention continues.
(3) This section shall not be taken as authorising the prospecting
for or mining of any minerals in, on or upon any land except with the consent
of the owner or occupier of the land.
|
Under
The Mineral vesting Act, it is categorically clear that the authority to grant a
mining license “devolves” on the Government General; and the penalties for
violation thereof are clearly stated in the Act.
However,
we also have the “counter-intuitive” Interpretation Act of 2001 which guides
the “interpretation” and “application” of the Mineral Vesting Act. Let's have a look at the specific and relevant provision(s):
|
42. Signification of
Governor GENERAL
(1) Where a function of the Governor General under an enactment is
to be exercised in accordance with the advice of Cabinet, any instrument
required to be issued in the exercise of that function, other than a
Proclamation, warrant or instrument to be issued under the Public Seal, may
be signified under the hand of the Secretary to the Cabinet, and such
signification is sufficient for all purposes.
(2) Where a function of the Governor General under any enactment
is to be exercised in accordance with the advice of a Minister acting under
the general authority of the Cabinet, any instrument required to be issued in
the exercise of that function, other than a Proclamation, warrant, or
instrument to be issued under the Public Seal may be signified under the hand
of the Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, and such
signification is sufficient for all purposes.
|
The
Interpretation Act is a set of laws which makes provision for the
interpretation of Acts of Parliament; hence, all legislation is interpreted/applied
within the context of that frame of reference. Specifically, it provides rules
of interpretation relating to the form, commencement and application of
legislation; defining words and expressions in general legislative use, thereby
reducing uncertainty. We might even want to call it the “Arbiter Act” for all
legislation.
Under
St. Lucia’s interpretation Act (Chapter 42), the power to sign agreements is
delegated to two persons: the PM and the Cabinet secretary.
Martinus
Francois must therefore be careful here. He must take time to understand the
relationship in law between devolution and delegation, especially where the
application of legislation is concerned.
But
Martinus is hard of hearing. He believes that he is about to launch his new
legal Sputnik: a monumental challenge to the violation of the Minerals (vesting)
Act of 2001 by a sitting PM who is also a legal luminary; and he deludes
himself by thinking that he has struck gold. But as I said, he must be extra
careful that he is not orchestrating a “Rochamel II” with potentially even more
disastrous legal implications than “Rochamel I”.
The
fact is anyone can spin the facts and even the law; but in the last analysis,
it is the decision of a court of law which matters – as was the case with “Rochamel
I”
If
I were Martinus, I would allow Tim and Rick to spin as much as they desire; they
have to do so to sell their wares. It’s a journalistic investment. The most I
would do in the circumstances would be provide them with a measure of legal counsel
and perhaps they need it – along “human rights” lines; but “taking the high legal ground” would be my
preferred option - unless he wanted to continue from where Doddy left off!
No comments:
Post a Comment