By SEAN DOUGLAS Thursday, September 24 2009

SENATE Opposition Leader Wade Mark hit Attorney General John Jeremie for criticising Law Association president Martin Daly for complaining about Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s vetoing of top legal posts and for Daly supporting Justice Rajendra Narine’s revival of Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr’s affidavit critical of Manning.

Mark spoke to Newsday yesterday at the Senate tea-break, in response to Jeremie’s earlier statement to the Senate.

Mark said, “It’s a very sad day when an Attorney General can use the cloak of Parliament and parliamentary privilege to launch an unwarranted attack on the president of the Law Association, a democratically-elected office who represents 2,500 lawyers in this country.”

Mark recalled Jeremie’s past run-ins with other officeholders, including allegedly trying to press former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson into pressing criminal charges.

Mark said, “We have witnessed the arbitrary and whimsical application of the veto power by the Prime Minister. First he used his majority in the Parliament to veto the appointment of Mr Stephen Williams (as Commissioner of Police).”

Mark said Manning had used his veto power to deny the country a permanent office-holder in the post of Solicitor General, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

“So I think the president of the Law Association was within his right and within the association’s right to query the veto of Carla Brown-Antoine.”

He said it was contrary to natural justice for someone to be denied the right to an explanation for an arbitrary action taken by someone else, that is, his non-appointment to a post. “Against that background, the call was being made for the Prime Minister to provide the country with some justification for the vetoing of Carla Brown-Antoine as DPP.”

Mark saw nothing wrong with the Law Association saying the PM ought to have given an explanation in this matter, and that if the veto is challenged in court that Brown-Antoine might have won.

“I believe the time has come when the Prime Minister’s vetoing of positions within the realm that he is entitled to veto, should be provided with explanations and justifications. If he cannot do it, in my view this ought to be challenged in court.

“I believe that the conduct of the Attorney General in this Parliament, and what he did last week Wednesday when he attacked Justice Rajendra Narine, leaves a lot to be desired. I believe he has declared war on the lawyers of this country. He seems to be at war with the judges of this country. It seems that the Government wants to take complete control of the Judiciary, but they are getting resistance and you are then getting these unfortunate responses which will increase the divide between the Government and people.”

Regarding Jeremie’s allegation of a “lie” by Daly who said a criticised affidavit could still be used by a court, Mark said, “That to my mind is a very unfortunate use of the language. I know that in Parliament it is almost a no-no as it relates to parliamentary language to use the word, “lie”. Again, it demonstrates the desperation of the Attorney General for him to even utter that word in the context of the president of a very reputable and very powerful association. It shows the Government is on the defensive and is on retreat.”