Saturday 24th January 2015 Ricardo Gladiator Welch Added Newsday Story By Andre Bagoo WARNERS MOTION OF CENSURE AGAINST HOWAI COLLAPSE IN PARLIAMENT A MOTION brought by Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner against Finance Minister Larry Howai over his performance as a minister collapsed in the House of Representatives yesterday after the Speaker disclosed he had been informed that the matter was before the High Court. Warner’s motion lasted only 17 minutes before the Chaguanas West MP abruptly brought it to an end. At his instruction, the motion was not seconded and therefore was not debated or put to a vote. Saying he was dazed by the developments, Government Whip Dr Roodal Moonilal adjourned the House, though Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar had been due to deliver a statement in the chamber later on in the proceedings. The House sat for about one hour, before being adjourned at 2.40 pm. Moonilal moved the House be adjourned to next Friday at 1.30 pm. “I did not plan to be doing this at this moment,” the Whip said. “I had no anticipation that the motion would collapse on itself in this manner.” The Opposition PNM had given way to the Independent Liberal Party (ILP) political leader to allow him to bring his own motion on the day set aside each month for debate of non- Government business. Warner had been expected to call for the House to express no confidence in Howai on the basis of a specific transaction reportedly overseen by Howai in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of First Citizens Bank during the period 2006 to 2009. However, the Chaguanas West MP cut short his presentation after he attempted, unsuccessfully, to carry on with his motion in compliance with a warning issued at the start of the sitting by House Speaker Wade Mark. That warning was prompted after the Speaker received notification that the subject matter of the motion was also a matter related to private litigation reportedly brought by Howai against a weekly publication. Howai has reportedly initiated a legal action against the Sunshine Publishing Company Limited after its Sunshine newspaper published an article alleging mismanagement of FCB, particularly relating to a loan transaction tied to the failed Carlton Savannah. That transaction was also specifically referred to in Warner’s motion. Warner is a former director of Sunshine Publishing Company Limited. The drama in Parliament began at 1.54 pm when Warner was due to open his private motion. Instead of Warner rising first to speak, the Speaker took the unusual step of making a prefatory statement. He said he was doing so to apprise the House of developments. “As presiding officer and Speaker, it is never my intention and it will never be my intention to stymie, stifle, muzzle free speech or debate in this honourable chamber,” Mark said. “Regarding the Parliamentary privileges, I stand steadfastly in defence of freedom of speech.” The Speaker said he received the motion from the Chaguanas West MP on December 30, 2014. He approved the motion on January 5, 2015. But high court proceedings, dated January 16, 2015, came to his attention 48 hours prior to yesterday’s sitting. The Speaker continued, “I received only a few hours ago, a notice from the High Court, dated January 16, 2015, a matter involving Larry Howai and Azard Ali of the Sunshine Publishing Company Limited. I would like to remind honourable members of the sub judice rule.” He read the rule – which bans reference to ongoing court cases in the House – aloud. Mark said, “I was not aware when I approved this motion that the matter that we are going to be discussing today is in a High Court of Trinidad and Tobago.” He said the Parliament had a duty to not undermine the courts and had a relationship of mutual courtesy with the Judiciary. “I want to make it very clear and members should know that there is a comity between the Judiciary and the Parliament,” Mark said. “What is before them, they must deal with and whatever is before us we should also deal with it.” However, the Speaker said, a balance had to be struck between free expression and not undermining the judicial system. He said he would deny the motion if it touched upon legal matters, but would let Warner speak first before coming to a decision. “Unless the member who is about to speak can tell this House that what he is about to say is not going to be anyway adverse to what is before the High Court, I would have to deny this motion, already having been approved...I don’t want to shut down anyone from speaking, but I have a duty. We could be treading on very dangerous ground,” Mark said. The unusual development prompted several MPs to air their views on the situation Parliament had found itself in. Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said care must be taken on the precedent being set, warning Parliament could be hamstrung. Government Whip Moonilal queried whether the motion in fact was identical to the court proceedings, details of which were not disclosed by the Speaker. He said Warner did not appear to be a party to the court matter referred to and questioned whether Warner was associated legally with the Sunshine publication. He queried whether Warner lifted the content of the Sunshine publication for his motion. Moonilal said the Government was prepared to defend the motion. St Joseph MP Terrence Deyalsingh – an attorney – said Parliament might be stymied in future if the motion was shut down. “Any Parliamentarian from any side who wishes to escape the scrutiny of this Parliament would simply run to the High Court, file any motion and shut down free debate,” Deyalsingh warned. All of Parliament’s rules are subject to the Speaker’s discretion. When he rose to speak, Warner said he did not lift his motion from the Sunshine. “I hope you will allow me to cover the motion as far as it relates to the competence of the present Minister of Finance who was CEO of FCB and whether he is competent for the turbulent times ahead,” Warner said. Mark called on Warner to formally move the motion by reading what had been filed. Warner then did so and began his contribution. “Mr Speaker, I am guided by your ruling,” Warner said. “This motion is intended to identify how one decision-maker can impact on the quality of life of a people. The best indicators of future behaviours are the experiences of the past. Trust has become an issue. I am concerned about the people who elected us.” While he did not touch any issues relating to the FCB’s reported involvement in the Carlton Savannah enterprise, Warner faced two objections from Government MPs who questioned the relevance of what he was saying. He sought to focus on matters outside of the time-frame identified in his motion. Moonilal objected saying, “Let me hear the part about the Carlton Savannah.” The Speaker overruled this. “Try again,” Warner said to Moonilal across the floor. Warner went on, thanking Rowley and Opposition Chief Whip Marlene Mc Donald for giving way to his motion. He then said he wanted to review the behaviour of the former FCB CEO Howai and went on to pre-2006 transactions, going back to one from 2002 involving Cemex, a Mexican cement company and a proposed takeover.At this point, Caroni East MP Dr Tim Gopeesingh objected, questioning the relevance of what Warner was saying, to his (Warner) own motion. The Speaker did not overrule the objection and warned Warner to stick to the recitals of his motion and not go on to other matters, “all over the place.” Warner said he wanted to discuss matters that were pre-2002 and post-2009. He said Cemex was a case in point. Mark, however, said that subject matter had not been approved and he did not want Warner going into any unapproved “excursions”. “A motion of censure is a serious thing,” Mark said. “It is a no-confidence motion in a member of a minister. Where approval is given to one, you stick to the recitals! You cannot bring in other matters. What is before this House is this motion. If you are going to pre-2003 you cannot raise issues that you have not sought approval for. You are going to a new area where the House did not approve. Continue please.” To this, a clearly defeated and frustrated Warner said, “Thank you, Mr Speaker...I am through.” Mark then said, “Do we have a seconder to this motion?” PNM MP’s vacillated, with Deyalsingh and La Brea MP Fitzgerald Jeffrey rising to support the motion. However, Warner indicated to them that they should sit. “Waste of time,” Warner muttered, packing up his briefcase to leave the chamber. Moonilal then rose. “Mr Speaker, I just want to get the record clear on what is happening here,” the Government Whip said. “Permission has been granted to the member to raise a motion on Private Member’s Day. The Opposition allowed the member. The member has several recitals here of which the member has not referred to one recital to tell us of his motion.” Moonilal then added, “Mr Speaker, I am at a loss. I do not know what is happening. This is an abuse of the House. A member can speak without one reference to the recitals.” But Mark stopped the Whip and said, “Listen, this debate has come to a premature end.” The Whip moved the adjournment. Howai later said yesterday’s developments in Parliament were an unfortunate waste of Parliament time. Howai, a Senator, in a brief interview with Newsday as he left the chamber, said, “I thought unfortunately that the time of the House was wasted. I don’t want to say anything else.” For his part, Warner, after he left the chamber, told reporters the developments were an attempt to censor him. “That was done to muzzle me,” Warner said. STANDING ORDER 49 - MATTERS SUB JUDICE (1) Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, a Member shall not raise or pursue any matter which relates to active proceedings until the matter is ended by judgment or discontinuance, unless the Speaker is satisfied that– (a) the matter is clearly related to a matter of general public importance or a ministerial decision is in question; (b) the matter does not relate to a case that is awaiting or under adjudication, particularly those matters before a jury; and (c) the Member does not in his comments create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the fair determination of a matter.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 07:51:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015