Tuesday 27th January 2015 Ricardo Gladiator Welch Added Express Story By Ria Taitt And Guardian Story By Gail Alexander WARNER: HOUSE SPEAKER WADE MARK MISLED PARLIAMENT AND MUST GO Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner said yesterday that his party now has no confidence in House Speaker Wade Mark and called on him to resign. In a statement, he said: “We therefore hereby call upon Mark to do the honourable thing and resign as his continued presence in the Chair would only further undermine confidence in the impartiality of the Office of the Speaker and bring the office into further odium and disrepute..” Warner said the fact that it was Howai who brought the matter of the lawsuit to Mark’s attention strengthened his point that the filing of the lawsuit which followed the filing of the motion of censure was part of a move to muzzle him. He said Mark’s ex post facto “admission of error” following the Judiciary’s statement served no purpose to a nation that had been denied the lawful opportunity to have its ministerial officer holders scrutinised. “It does not undo the damage caused to our democracy and the institution of the Parliament. The only thing that has been achieved is the removal of the unjustified scandal from over the head of the Judiciary and for it to be placed where it rightfully belongs - over the head of the Speaker,” Warner stated. He added that it was unacceptable that in such a critical matter the Speaker could make such a mistake as to misquote the source of a communication, especially where the Speaker twice stated that the source of his notification was the High Court- a powerful and independent institution. Warner said he planned to file another “all-embracing” motion of censure against Howai that would take into consideration the issue of the report of Henry Forde on Trinidad Cement Limited, the Carlton Savannah and other matters. NOT THE JUDICIARY The Judiciary denied it, and House Speaker Wade Mark apologised. And in contradiction to his (the Speaker’s) statement to the House that notification had come from the Judiciary, Mark yesterday admitted that it was Finance Minister Larry Howai, the subject of the motion of censure, who had notified him by letter last Thursday of his (Howai’s) lawsuit against Jack Warner’s Sunshine newspaper. The controversy arising out of the bizarre collapse at Friday’s sitting of the House of Representatives of the motion of censure filed by Warner against Howai continued to play out yesterday. The Judiciary, which found itself under question, issued a release, claiming total non-involvement in the issue. Mark, speaking before the commencement of the debate on the motion of censure last Friday, had told the Parliament: “I received only a few hours ago a notice from the High Court of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dated January 16, 2015, a matter involving Larry Howai and Azad Ali of the Sunshine Publishing Company Limited.” But yesterday the Judiciary at 9.33 a.m issued a release stating: “While there appears to be some misunderstanding which we expect the Honourable Speaker of the House to clarify, the Judiciary can confirm that no notice, letter or any other communication on the matter was forwarded by the court or any of its officers to the Speaker or any officers of the Parliament.” By midday (12.02 p.m.) the Speaker issued his own a statement that he had made an “inadvertent” error when he “conveyed the impression that the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago had sent him a notice dated January 16, 2015” of the matter (involving Howai and Ali) before it”. “The Speaker of the House deeply regrets any embarrassment which may have been caused to the Judiciary, particularly having regard to the comity and mutual respect which exists between the Parliament and the Judiciary and will write to the Honourable Chief Justice conveying his regrets,” the statement read. The Speaker added that he proposed to correct the record during the next sitting of the House of Representatives. The next sitting is on Friday. However, in admitting that it was not the High Court which had informed him, Mark said it was Howai himself. “The Speaker of the House was by letter dated January 22nd, 2015, notified by the claimant (Howai) of certain legal proceedings commenced by the claimant in the High Court on January 16, 2015, which brought into urgent consideration a novel application of the sub judice rule in the debate on the motion before the House. It was in these unprecedented circumstances that the statement (that he was notified by the High Court of the lawsuit) was made inadvertently.” HOW IT WENT DOWN The motion of censure dealt with Howai’s handling of a $470 million loan to Carlton Savannah Limited. The motion was filed on December 30, 2014 and approved by the Speaker for debate on January 5, 2015. On January 16, 2015, Howai filed a claim in the High Court in which he sought damages for libel against the Sunshine newspaper which had published an article in its December 26, 2014 issue on the matter of the $470 million loan. Last Friday, Mark had pointed out at the start of the debate that he feared that Warner’s contribution was likely to run afoul of the sub judice rule. Warner, in making his contribution, then raised the issue of a Report on Insider Trading in which Howai was featured but Mark ruled that he could not raise this issue because it was not part of the preamble of his motion of censure. Warner then aborted his presentation and opted not to have the motion seconded, leading to its collapse. THE GUARDIAN House Speaker Wade Mark yesterday came under further criticism after he admitted he made a mistake in the statements he made in last Friday’s Parliament session on Independent Liberal Party MP Jack Warner’s motion of censure against Finance Minister Larry Howai. Moments after Mark so to correct the error, he was severely criticised by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley and Martin Daly, SC, who both called on him to produce the letter that he acted on when he made his initial judgement last Friday, and the Independent Liberal Party, who wants him to step down. Warner’s no-confidence motion against Howai collapsed after Warner was cautioned by Mark about heading in the wrong direction and the full requirements for the motion were not completed after Warner walked out of the Parliament that day. Before starting debate, Mark had told the Parliament it was not his intention to muzzle freedom of speech. He noted, however, that he had received Warner’s motion on December 30, 2014 and approved it on January 5, 2015, and said he had only received “a few hours ago” (that day) notice from the High Court, dated January 16, 2015, on a matter concerning Howai and Azard Ali of Sunshine Publishing Company Ltd. Mark had noted Parliament’s sub-judice rule but had allowed Warner to proceed on the approved content of the motion concerning a Carlton Savannah issue. Warner was later cautioned when he strayed from the approved content to another matter concerning a Cemex matter. Warner packed up and walked out after that. The Speaker’s remark about the “High Court notice” was subsequently spotlighted when Daly issued a press release taking issue with the perceived “mixing of politics in judicial affairs.” Rowley: He has questions to answer Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley wants House Speaker Wade Mark to show him the letter which effectively ended a motion of censure by Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner against Finance Minister Larry Howai. Speaking at a press conference at his Charles Street, Port-of-Spain, office yesterday, Rowley said an admittance of error by Mark was not enough. “The Speaker now has questions to answer. And based on the answer, my first reaction is: There may be here a question of privilege. I have been in the Parliament since 1987 January and I have never seen anything like this. “A communication from the High Court to the Parliament, in the circumstances as prevailed last Friday, would have serious consequences with respect to the separation of powers in T&T.” Rowley said he was also concerned about members’ privilege arising out of the matter and wanted to see for himself what inspired the Speaker’s actions. “This morning, I have written to the Speaker asking him to assist the members of the Opposition, and the Parliament as a whole, and the country as a whole, by providing us with a copy of the notice that he received from the High Court,” he added. “So I am here once again, calling on the Prime Minister to remove the Attorney General from office in protection of the interests of the people of T&T. And I am calling on the Director of Public Prosecution to immediately open a criminal investigation into the allegations made by Mr David West as they are contained in an affidavit in a lawsuit before the court.” The AG has denied the allegations and says he is ready to defend himself in court. ILP: He must go The Independent Liberal Party (ILP) yesterday called on House Speaker Wade Mark to resign, saying his “ex-post facto ‘admission of error’ following the Judiciarys public advice is unsatisfactory.” In the statement yesterday, the ILP said Mark’s statement didn’t “undo the damage caused to our democracy and the institution of the Parliament. The only thing achieved is the removal of the unjustified scandal from over the head of the Judiciary and for it to be placed where it rightfully belongs, over the head of the Speaker.” The ILP said after reviewing the circumstances and comments made by Mark during the motion, it no longer had any confidence in him continuing in the chair. “We therefore hereby call upon Mark to do the honourable thing and resign, as his continued presence in the chair would only further undermine confidence in the impartiality of the Office of the Speaker and bring the office into further odium and disrepute. “It is unacceptable and cannot be sanctioned that in such a critical matter as the censure of a minister, that a Speaker could make such a mistake as to misquote the source of a communication, especially where that Speaker would have repeated twice that the source of his notification was the High Court, a powerful and independent institution. It also raises the question of in what other areas has the Speaker erred.” What Judiciary said Yesterday, the Judiciary, noting the media reports on the matter, distanced itself from the issue, saying: “While there appears to be some misunderstanding which we expect the Honourable Speaker to clarify, the Judiciary can confirm that no notice, letter or any other communication on the matter was forwarded by the court or any of its officers to the Speaker or any officers of the Parliament.” Around the same time Mark issued a statement saying he was notified by a letter from claimant Finance Minister Larry Howai, and not the Judiciary, of certain High Court proceedings started on January 16 against Azard Ali, which brought into “urgent consideration a novel application of the sub-judice rule in last Friday’s motion by ILP MP Jack Warner.” Clarifying the matter and apologising to the Judiciary, Mark’s statement said: “The Speaker of the House wishes to clarify the statement which was made by him before debate in the House on Friday January 23, 2015, which conveyed the impression the High Court of T&T had sent him a notice dated 16 January, 2015, of a matter before it. “The Speaker of the House was by letter, dated January 22, 2015, notified by the claimant of certain legal proceedings commenced by the claimant in the High Court on January 16, 2015, which brought into urgent consideration a novel application of the sub-judice rule in the debate on the motion before the House. “It was in these unprecedented circumstances that the statement was made inadvertently.” Mark added: “The Speaker of the House deeply regrets any embarrassment which may have been caused to the Judiciary, particularly having regard to the comity and mutual respect which exists between the Parliament and the Judiciary, and will write to the Honourable Chief Justice conveying his regrets.” Mark said he proposed to correct the record during the next Parliament sitting. Daly: Release Letter In another press release soon after Mark’s statement, Daly said: “With considerable regret I am bound to say I consider the contents of the Speaker’s statement dated today, January 26, 2015, intended to clarify the basis of his actions in the House of Representatives on January 23, 2015, reflective of a breach of nearly every fundamental tenet of fair play. “It is difficult to understand how a letter from the claimant in the lawsuit and the person who was the subject matter of the motion could possibly be mistaken as a communication from the High Court and to be described as such. It was manifestly from the claimant/the person who was the subject matter of the motion. He added: “The Speaker acted exclusively on the representation of an interested party. The Speaker acted with secrecy in the sense that the real basis of his action was never disclosed to the House of Representatives. “This irregularity is compounded by the fact that he was acting secretly on the basis of a letter from an interested party. “How can anyone accept that the letter raised ‘a novel application of the sub-judice rule’ without the Speaker disclosing what was said to be the novel application (even if he did not disclose the letter) and thereby give the members of the House an opportunity to be heard on whether the point was novel or should form the basis of enforcement of the sub-judice rule. “ Daly said while the Speaker promptly disclosed the basis on which he acted to the House of Representatives and had apologised to the Judiciary, which he commended Mark for, the House Speaker should also release the letter he acted on for public scrutiny in the interest of fairness.
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:23:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015