So tell me how is it that this suspension can be justified by one proclamation that " lies" to destroy a government would be punished yet when allegations which were later found to be untruths by Vernella against Mr Rowley has gone Unpunished? Attempts at character defamation seems to be an " open" choice when presented in parliment. It seems like the House Speaker's ability to be impartial and to maintain order is severely
La king and no existence along with a " puppet" muted President. Judicial procedures and matters of due process of Parlimentry proceedings seems very questionable.
Gs
Daly: Rowley’s suspension ‘deeply troubling’
Reshma Ragoonath
Published: Trinidad Guardian
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Martin Daly
Senior Counsel Martin Daly says the suspension of the Leader of the Opposition from the House of Representatives is “deeply troubling.”
To make such a move, he said, without the intervention of the Privileges Committee could “readily lead to oppression of an Opposition by the party in Government.”
Last Wednesday, Rowley was suspended for the remainder of the parliamentary term after a Government motion calling for Rowley’s censure and his suspension was passed in the House.
The motion was centered around the 31 emails, purporting to come from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and other members of her Cabinet, which Rowley read out in Parliament in May 2013. The emails allegedly revealed a plot between Persad-Bissessar and certain cabinet members to murder a journalist, bug the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and commit other acts of misconduct in public office.
Yesterday, Daly, in a statement, contended that he had great difficulty accepting the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition originally dealt with the alleged emails, “but I had hoped that the Integrity Commission would conduct an appropriate and expeditious investigation having regard to the potential for lasting reputational damage to those whom the alleged emails implicated in serious wrongdoing.”
However, he said, the fundamental difficulty about Rowley’s suspension “is that it is not possible credibly to establish by means of a parliamentary debate whether material presented in Parliament, spoken or written, is true or false or authentic or bogus.”
Truth and authenticity, he argued, were essentially matters of fact and thus required the facts “to be found by a body properly constituted and equipped to receive and assess evidence relevant to the issue of whether the challenged material is false or not authentic.”
In the context of speech and presentation in Parliament, he said, “the Privileges Committee is obviously the body that should carry out the appropriate exercise.”
When the Privileges Committee sat, he said, there were defined thresholds of proof which those accusing a member of the House of misleading the House must cross and the accused member has the benefit of having his counsel present.
“Whatever the conclusion of the Privileges Committee, the public will see the reasons for the Committee’s finding when it reports back to Parliament. There is also opportunity for members of the Committee to dissent from a majority view in the report for reasons that can be stated for the scrutiny of the public. In addition the report may be debated, thereby providing more of the clear light of public scrutiny,” Daly added.
However, he said, as others have pointed out, “the use of a simple parliamentary majority on the conclusion of a debate on a motion to suspend a member, without the prior intervention of a fact-finding body such as the Privileges Committee, can readily lead to oppression of an Opposition by the party in Government.”
A proceeding before the Privileges Committee did not have the arbitrary character of a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives, he added.
Daly restated his position that he had no party political affiliation and his comments were motivated by a desire that fairness prevail.
He also said he had “recent and grave concerns about the seeming lack of any independent guidance from the Speaker of the House who, from the moment he takes the chair, has a duty to be fair and balanced.”
Daly said the duty of a Speaker was superior to any party affiliation or obligation that a Speaker may have.
“In view of the pending expiry of this Parliament it is unnecessary at this stage to do more than record this concern and hope that we can do better in the next Parliament,” he concluded.
News
Previous Article
Moonilal: PNM MPs should return salariesNext Article
Sando hospital staff say no to shutdown