Saying the public interest is paramount even though the accused has certain expressed fundamental rights, Attorney General Charles Ramson yesterday dismissed criticisms directed at the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill.

The public interest lies at the heart of the legislation, he said, adding that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) protects those rights. Ramson offered his opinion on the criticisms of the bill saying, “There is an agenda driven by veiled motives of impropriety which indirectly impinge upon the integrity of the office holder.”

The DPP, as the office holder, is being attacked for serving in the interest of the public, Ramson said yesterday during a press conference at his office. He declared that the criticisms are not an attack on the legal amendments, but on the office of the DPP, and he also questioned why no one has come to the defence of the DPP.

Ramson said the local Court of Appeal has frowned upon judgments flowing from the Assizes and according to him, a call had been made for the state to be conferred with the right of appeal since in 1984. He mentioned a particular case involving an accused who he identified only as Mitchell saying it was “crystal clear” the man had committed the crime. He said too that the Court of Appeal later made the same observation.

Ramson said the parliamentary opposition, which has rejected the legislation, has an agenda “somewhere along the line”. He told reporters that the contents of the bill had been inspired by judgments of the Appeal Court when the current government was not in power and stressed that the government did not “wake up” one morning and decide to craft a bill to keep people imprisoned for long periods.

“The bill has no hidden agenda,” Ramson said and he insisted that bail is not an issue. He said the DPP is not likely to oppose bail when an accused person would have been set free by a jury. The right to appeal has no binding effect on bail, according to the AG. “I don’t believe there is any genuine commitment by the opposition forces to the passing of this legislation and I think they are really putting in front of the public this altruistic idea that they are the protectors of the rights of the citizens,” Ramson said.

Ramson charged that the opposition is simply guilty of “unvarnished sophistry”. He called the opposition arguments on the bill “shallow at best” and said no one on that side of the Assembly appeared interested in getting the business of the House done.

Quoting from the scriptures, he said “there is no glory without sacrifice,” adding that the opposition seemed keen on not having the bill come to fruition. “They have to get their act together and understand how the process is to be moved,” he added. Ramson said also that he had no intention of being party to the sluggishness which had characterized the bill prior to his re-appointment as AG.
The AG said he inherited the shenanigans that went on in the National Assembly with respect to the bill when he resumed the post in February 2009.
Some fifteen months after it went to the Select Committee the first meeting was held, he said yesterday, asking “what kind of lethargy must be countenanced by these persons responsible for having this bill out”.
Opposition parties have been unequivocal in their rejection of the bill, arguing since 2008 that it is flawed with grave implications for the local judicial system. Specifically, the opposition attacked the right of the DPP to appeal in criminal matters saying the legislation effectively translates into longer jail terms for prisoners.
Prior to it being passed by way of a government majority in the National Assembly, parliamentary opposition parties condemned the Select Committee process as a “sham” saying it was devoid of any input outside the government benches. The opposition charged that the bill was sneaked into Parliament for passage.
But Ramson said yesterday that the opposition misunderstood what the Select Committee process entails, adding that the process has no room for debates which are articulated in the Assembly. He said further that the opposition chose not to be a part of the committee process.