Former Attorney General, Kings Counsel Ransford Braham, has rubbished the arguments of submitted by lawyers representing the PNP, that Parliament acted with an improper purpose when it extended the tenure of Paula Llewellyn as Director of Public Prosecutions.
King’s Counsel Braham offered a strident rejection of the legal argument on day four of the appeal hearing underway in downtown Kingston.
He’s urged the Court of Appeal not to second guess Parliament’s legitimate law making power.
Nora Gaye Banton reports.
Lawyers for the PNP have placed great value on the argument that when Parliament extended Paula Llewellyn’s tenure in July last year, it acted contrary to the scope of its proper law making authority.
The lawyers say that rendered the act improper and unconstitutional.
But Ransford Braham wants the Court of Appeal to reject that argument completely.
He says it has no place before them.
According to the former Solicitor General, so long as Parliament’s actions did not interfere with any power or function of the office of the DPP, it cannot credibly be accused of acting improperly.
Braham went on to note that even if the Court of Appeal finds that the amendment was intended to benefit Paula Llewellyn by granting her an extension, that still would not amount to an improper purpose.
He reasoned that because Parliaments in the Westminster tradition have historically passed bills to benefit individuals or groups, such an action was in line with the historical role and authority of the legislature.
He cited examples of bills intended to establish churches or build railways to support the point.
When challenged by Justice Vivene Harris, who noted those examples were not comparable to the constitutionally protected office of DPP, Braham told the Court that it should focus on the fact that so long as the parliamentary action did not interfere with any other recognised power, it must be presumed lawful and constitutionally sound.
Braham also rejected the PNP’s reliance on letters exchanged between the DPP and the Public Service Commission.
He told the Court those letters, which were never before the Parliament, could not be used to determine the purpose of legislation validly passed into law.
He concluded by urging the Court not to second guess another arm of government that has acted within the scope of its authority.
Braham says the Constitutional Court’s ruling should be overturned.
The final day of the appeal gets underway at 9:30 on Friday morning.
Credit: Source link