THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH BILL

The principle that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been a bedrock principle of our law since almost the beginning of time.  It is also enshrined into our Constitution that no one shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. There is also the old adage that our legal system promotes that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang.


That is why I was most shocked and dismayed when I read Mr. Faris Al Rawi's latest attempt at closing loopholes that allow all kinds of criminals (especially white collar ones) to escape from the long arm of the law. Basically, the erstwhile Attorney General is saying that this Bill is necessary because there are too many people who have unexplained wealth and that  this proposed law is a way of catching them. Well, to be fair, he has a point there. I mean, for example,  does anybody remember the report of Planning Minister Camille Robinson Regis depositing some $143,000 in cash in a First Citizens Bank and there never being a satisfactory explanation given for that?  Was that transaction suspicious in your opinion? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so? Will the Honourable Attorney General explain where he and his wife, for example, found the money to buy a property in St. Clair which they are renting to the Government for some $23 million over the next three years? And if they inherited or were given that property is it reasonable to ask where the donor(s) of that very expensive property got the money in the first place? Is that suspicious in your view? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so?


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Would it be reasonable (using these two examples) to launch probes into these matters? If not, why not? And if so, why? Continuing the use of these two examples, what if there was a change of Government tomorrow morning and the new Attorney General uses his position from behind the scenes to have these two politicians have their property frozen?  Would you say that this was politically motivated? If so, why would you say so? If not, why not?


And although the Attorney General points to safeguards in the Bill whereby persons such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have to sign off on any application to freeze the assets does anybody believe that the DPP, for example,  is really politically impartial? If you do, then why do you believe that? If you don't, then why do you believe that? Certainly, from where I sit there are certain questions that make me wonder about the DPP. For example, why has the infamous emailgate affair not been brought to a conclusion? Why hasn't the matter involving the drugs at former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar's home been cleared up? There are other matters to which no clear and reasonable answers have been forthcoming from the DPP or his office. His signal failure to deal with these matters gives rise to most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed as to why he hasn't acted. And that's really the point. We have to be even more careful than the larger societies that our basic rights are not trampled upon because everybody knows everybody else.


The Bill is draconian. If you are accused your property can be frozen 'ex parte' , i.e., behind your back and without you getting any chance to say why this shouldn't happen. All of your assets are frozen! Full stop! And it is up to you to go and defend yourself. But (and here's the catch) if you hire a lawyer to defend you he has to be very careful that any monies that you use to pay his fees are free and clear, because if they are linked to you, his fees, that you have paid him to defend you, can be seized! Talk about a Catch 22! What lawyers do you know will want to do matters like this whereby simply for defending a client the lawyer can find himself being investigated and his assets being frozen as well?


So, you are put in the unenviable position of having your assets frozen ...and that includes your home, by the way ... and having no means to defend yourself (unless you have some wealthy relatives who love you very much) and having to fight the State with its comparatively unlimited resources. A really fair fight!


I am personally of the view that this proposed law will not be able to stand up in Court. But that will take years to be fought out and in the meantime a lot of mischief and expense can and will take place. That there is an abuse and that some people are getting away is readily admitted.  But the Bill as it stands is clearly an abomination. It sweeps up everybody ... not only the guilty. Our only real hope is that the nine Independent Senators vote against this Bill when it reaches the Senate. But it will only take one Independent senator for the Bill to pass! Will each and every one stand and vote against this Bill? Because you should know that they are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.