Motions
FULL VIDEO
REQUEST THAT THE HOUSE CONDUCTS A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE REPREHENSIBLE INCIDENT AT THE FIFTEENTH SITTING OF THE ASSEMBLY LEGISLATURE, ON MARCH 23RD, 2023, AND TO BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN JUNE 30, 2023, AND LAID IN THE ASSEMBLY AT THE EARLIEST SITTING THEREAFTER
Question put and negative.
Motion denied.
At this point, I believe this House and the people of Tobago deserve an independent investigation that can unearth the truth and could also afford even the public servant to have her say in a way that would be fair, and in a way that would be transparent.
Madam Presiding Officer, I heard the name calling; I appreciate the fact that there are only two Members here who are seriously treating with Tobago’s business. Therefore, I understand that we would be attacked; I understand that we would be laughed at, but I know for a fact that the people of Tobago are paying attention; they are taking notice and the people of Tobago at this point, are simply waiting to exhale, because this has been a total embarrassment. It has been shameful; it has been disgraceful and Tobagonians just cannot wait to get rid of this nightmare. I thank you. [Desk thumping]
Madam Presiding Officer, I just want the Chief Secretary to know that the people of Tobago understands who the real hypocrites are at this time. That is what I want the Chief Secretary to know. The people of Tobago understands who are the real hypocrites. They understand who made promises and who are not keeping their promises. They understand and they are seeing the Administration for what it is and who you all really are. That is the crux of the matter here today.
Madam Presiding Officer, as I wrap up -1 came here thinking that we as a House would really want to know the truth. It seems as though this Administration enjoys covering things up. They enjoy being very - they do not like transparency; they do not like accountability. It is for that reason why I now understand why the Chief Secretary does not want an independent investigation. It is quite easy for them to come and blame the public servants who cannot defend themselves and it is quite easy for them to deflect when the matter is - the evidence is that on two (2) occasions, we came here as a House - the Clerk was absent for whatever reason, and we dispensed with the business of the House.
On that fateful day on March 23rd, 2023, we also came to the House, the Clerk was absent, for some reason and with some kind of advice and interpretation, the Deputy Presiding Officer decided to adjourn the House,and that is the fact of the matter.
Thank you so much.
So here you have the Chief Secretary trying to give the impression that this Minority Leader acted in some improper way, some unlawful way, when I simply would have written to the relative bodies in the Assembly Legislature, to fulfil what was the precedence. The precedence was, there were four (4) positions afforded to the previous Minority Leader, and those were the four (4) positions we would have adopted in addition to the fact that we asked for a separate cleaner, because we had inherited this office during the height of COVID-19. We are saying, that it does not make sense to have the person who is a hospitality attendant, dealing with persons coming into the office and at the same time, have that person also interfacing with all the surfaces and that kind of thing. That just was not proper given the science of COVID-19 and how persons were infected. The Chief Secretary and the rest of us agreed in that meeting that that was in fact, a consideration, and that was approved and the staff was paid.
Madam Presiding Officer, I want you to compare that to a voice recording that is out in the public space.
So, are they admitting that on those two (2) occasions, the House was convened improperly, or is it that they are saying, that they have misinterpreted what should have happened on this occasion? We have the precedence. The House by itself would have resolved itself, because we created the precedence. The precedence was not one time; it was not two (2) times - in fact, it has even been done in previous Administrations. So this matter is not about the Clerk - this matter is about the House having a precedence and went ultra vires to the precedence that we in fact, created.
We created the precedence, so how now you can move away from the precedence and argue that only the Chief Administrator could appoint a Clerk? We are not asking for a Clerk to be appointed to carry out administrative functions. The law is clear. All the Clerk has to do in the House, is basically make sure that whatever we dispense of today, there are records of that. So if the Clerk wants to go to the bathroom - so what are you telling me, that we have to stop this Sitting and allow the Clerk to go to the bathroom and then we come back? That is why previously on occasions, we had persons within the Assembly - because all you have to do, is ensure that the roll call happens and the Order of Business is dispensed.
In fact, I am hearing the Chief Secretary talking about creating a position of Assistant Clerk. Again, you are hearing the contradictions. If you are saying, in terms of the appointment of a Clerk - which only a Clerk currently the law speaks to - the law did not speak to any Deputy Clerk; it did not even speak to any Assistant Clerk. So how can you now say, that you are going to create a contract position to now fill the role of a Clerk if the Clerk is absent? That is a contradiction of your own argument. So it is either we are appreciating that ‘Clerk’ means, in terms of the legal precedence as indicated in the Parliament, where a junior staff will sit in because the substantive Clerk of the Parliament - I do not think anyone of us has ever seen the Clerk of the Parliament sit in the Parliament procedures. It is the junior staff who would sit in and do the roll call. It is not the Clerk. So, tos it here and give the impression that you need a Clerk physically to be here to start the day, it is incorrect and improper. It is an incorrect interpretation.
At the end of the day, Standing Order 92 (1) is clear. If we are going to adopt Standing Order 92 (1), it means that you adopt it in its truest meaning, and if whatever happens in the Parliament - therefore, it needs to be transposed here. You cannot take half and leave the other. So if in the Parliament, you can have junior staff, it also means - and the Deputy Presiding Officer said it when he declared and adjourned the Sitting. He said, “The Laws and the Standing Orders are silent”. Therefore, if that was the premise upon which he adjourned and made his decision, then we have the Standing Order that tell us what we do when the Laws and the Standing Orders are in fact, silent. It says, “You must revert to Standing Order 92”. So, once that is the premise, once that is the argument, once that is the basis upon which you are making your decision, then we have directive on how we treat with that. So to make this statement about the Clerk and not understand that we had multiple infractions of interpretation by the Deputy Presiding Officer, is for us to be blatantly blindsided; blatantly dishonest and blatantly hypocritical.
I heard the Chief Secretary talked about who is hypocritical. I want to make this statement abundantly clear. Here it is you have a Chief Secretary trying to give the impression that a Minority Leader who received a letter/correspondent that was sent to the Leader of Assembly Business, saying the previous Minority had these four (4) appointments... [Interruption]
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. The substantive matter of this House as the Chief Secretary said, none of them addressed, and it is a fact that on two occasions in this very House, notwithstanding that the Clerk was not present, the House met and dispensed of the business of day. I heard so many contradictions with that. In one breath they were saying, it is only the Chief Administrator who can appoint someone to fulfil the duties of the Clerk of the House, but at the same time, the questions have to be asked: On those two occasions, who appointed the junior staff to fulfil the duties of the Clerk, and is it this Administration? As I said, you cannot be fish and fowl - you have to choose one.
Madam Presiding Officer, I stand on Standing Order 44 (5), on a point of clarity. I did not say that they were absent, neither did I mention that they sent letters noting their absence. I said they were outside of the House and not inside of the House. The House is in here where we are, not outside the doors - the House is in here. There is a difference of being outside and being inside. If you were outside of the House, you are absent from the House.
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I was making the point that all Members saw the Minority team present, and the Deputy Presiding Officer made the most scandalous kind of accusation. In fact, it appeared that he listed the Members of this Minority as absent. When we entered the Chamber, we were present. He also saw us walk in soon after he made his declaration, and for him to indicate that we were absent seems to me - when I had conversations even with the Leader of Assembly Business on this very matter - they are attempting to shape the narrative, and to me, there is a clandestine kind of narrative and an undertone as to suggest there was some kind of collusion. When the public heard the Minority was absent and the Clerk was absent, it was to send some kind of shameless, shambolic, clandestine kind of arrangement, and this is quite unfortunate. How could it be, where everyone in here saw us present, patiently waiting to see what the decision would be, and this Deputy Presiding Officer would so shamelessly come and indicate and lie to the House to say that this Minority was absent - absolute untruth!
Mr. Manning used to say, if you can lie about the small things, just imagine when it comes to the big things. We have to take a look at this Administration. It is sad. It is unfortunate and I think the Minority deserves an apology. [Interruption
Madam Presiding Officer, it is quite unfortunate that every time this Administration is found wanting, true to form, they throw (as the Deputy Presiding Officer said) public servants under the bus. I want to make a call to the public servants today, to take copious note of this very troubling development, because it means today it is the Clerk, but tomorrow if found wanting in a Division, it could be you. So make sure and dot your i’s and cross your t’s, because this Administration when found wanting and need a scapegoat, the easy suspect is the public servants who they know cannot defend themselves. Here it is, in this debate, this Administration has made the Clerk of the House the subject of this discussion, and the poor Clerk does not even have the opportunity to respond and clear her name. This Administration understanding that the Clerk cannot clear her name, is basically (as the Deputy Presiding Officer clearly admitted) ‘throwing the Clerk under the bus’. Those were not my words; they were the Deputy Presiding Officer’s words. [Interruption]
Members, Members, please allow the Minority Leader his thirty (30) minutes to wrap up.
Madam Presiding Officer, it is their own Colleague, and we now realize that they like to ‘sell out’ one another; they enjoy ‘selling out’ one another. It is the Deputy Presiding Officer, by his own admission, who told all of Trinidad and Tobago that today they were throwing the Clerk under the bus. Those were not my words, but the words of the Deputy Presiding Officer.
Madam Presiding Officer, what is more comical - and I do not know - we talked about a lack of communication. It seems like the Members on the other side - that some of them do not speak to one another. Here it is, I have the goodly Councillor saying to us, that Standing Order 11 was quoted when the Presiding Officer was absent.
“An announcement shall be made by the Clerk of the House and the Deputy Presiding Officer will then take the chair and be vested with the powers of the Presiding Officer.”
That is the Councillor reminding us of that procedure, and she basically hinted that the process could not have happened, which meant that the Deputy Presiding Officer was not properly seated in the chair of Deputy Presiding Officer; because the Clerk was absent to so conduct that exercise. Here it is, the Deputy Presiding Officer on the other hand is saying to us, that he basically would have done the functions that he is so vested with. At what point was he appointed Deputy Presiding Officer? You cannot be fish and fowl. You cannot say in one breath you are not recognizing the Clerk, and in the other breath you are taking up functions to which only the Clerk can vest. Here it is, there was no Clerk, but all of a sudden, there was someone sitting in the Deputy Presiding Officer’s chair. Who appointed the Deputy Presiding Officer to sit in the chair on this occasion? Clearly, there is a situation that if we were to agree with the goodly Councillor, the Deputy Presiding Officer was not so legally employed to sit in the chair, and authorized to sit in the chair and to even adjourn the House. The Chief Secretary by his own admission, did indicate such a process was flawed.
Madam Presiding Officer, before we go further, I also want to correct a wicked, dangerous, dishonest accusation by the Deputy Presiding Officer. Members here would have seen at 1.30 p.m., that both the Minority Councillor and I were properly seated and ready to perform the business of the people, and for the Deputy Presiding Officer...
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. The substantive matter of this House as the Chief Secretary said, none of them addressed, and it is a fact that on two occasions in this very House, notwithstanding that the Clerk was not present, the House met and dispensed of the business of day. I heard so many contradictions with that. In one breath they were saying, it is only the Chief Administrator who can appoint someone to fulfil the duties of the Clerk of the House, but at the same time, the questions have to be asked: On those two occasions, who appointed the junior staff to fulfil the duties of the Clerk, and is it this Administration? As I said, you cannot be fish and fowl - you have to choose one.
So when you see a former Presiding Officer trying to mislead Tobagonians into believing that somehow it is the Executive that is supposed to know that if the Clerk, is not there somebody else has to deputize that is not the job of the Executive. I would not say that she does not have any idea; she is being deliberate in trying to mislead Tobagonians. She knows when she sat in that Chair as Presiding Officer, no Executive ran that seat - she knows that. Unless she is saying that she was there by proxy and the Executive was running the show, telling her what to do; doing it for her and she was just the face. I am saying, that if this former Presiding Officer says that she had trained somebody here, how come a Note never came from out of the Legislature to a previous Executive Council asking for the position to be created first, so that the person could have been appointed in a lateral way to that position? How come?
This Legislature does its own Notes and send them to the Executive - how come? Since she has trained somebody, how come she never did that?
Madam Presiding Officer, if hypocrisy had a colour, it would be red; [Desk thumping] if hypocrisy had a synonym, it would be PNM [Desk thumping] and if hypocrisy had a face, it would look like that lady that turned purple. [Desk thumping] [Laughter]
So, Madam Presiding Officer, the request to have this House investigate what happened even after the Deputy Presiding Officer was so clear, pellucidly clear about the facts - and he placed on the hansard in the most careful manner what transpired, Madam Presiding Officer, this House doing an investigation is not warranted; it does not make any sense. In fact, if we have to pass this Motion, we should probably consider changing the resolution by saying:
“The Presiding Officer, and Deputy Presiding Officer must send reports to the Chief Administrator and let the Chief Administrator (based on delegated authority) commence an investigation process that will include selecting people to do the investigation, come up with a response and then give the action”.
That is where this matter should go - not in this House. [Desk thumping]
Madam Presiding Officer, sometimes things happen in the space and you wonder if it is just coincidence, or you wonder if it is planned, and one cannot underestimate the volume of wicked incompetence, and deliberate, wicked incompetence at that, that passes through this space called Tobago, and passes through the public service, generally speaking. So, one is forced to ask oneself, was that party real? They are not showing up and no announcement. Was that pre-planned? All of these are questions to be asked. It is not for this House to ask those questions. It is inappropriate in fact,for this House to ask those questions. It is also inappropriate for this House to investigate the circumstances by which the Clerk did not show up for duty. We have no locus standi on that matter. That is reserved for the only person on the island who has delegated authority, and that is the Chief Administrator. Even if the Chief Administrator has to do this, she or he (because that is not quite clear yet) will have to also notify the relevant authorities in Trinidad, inclusive and not limited to the Public Service Commission. That is not the business of this House.
So the reason why the Executive did not communicate anything (and I will end on this point because the Minority Councillor spoke about the lack of communication) about what transpired, is because we were trying the trump hardest notwithstanding the false information in the space, to stay out of a conversation that really and truly should be led by the Assembly Legislature.
In fact, I sent a note to the Presiding Officer. I said to the Presiding Officer, “Why don't you let the Legislature communication people put out a release, because that should be addressed from the Legislature, not the Executive. We have no business with the day-to-day operations of the Legislature of the House”. Sometime afterwards, she responded by saying that the advice she got was, that the Legislature should try not to be in a political fray and to remain as neutral as possible. The advice she got was that if the Legislature puts out any statement, it will look as if it is all political. That is why I guess they said nothing. We avoided having this conversation publicly.
(1) We did not want to encroach on the rights/responsibilities of the Assembly Legislature; and
(2) We recognized from the details the Deputy Presiding Officer shared early, that that matter really and truly should be resident with the Chief Administrator for investigation and action if and only if warranted thereafter.
Remember I said the Clerk could have easily been preparing - clothes starched and pressed and fell sick and could not leave home. That could be the circumstance. She could have been incapacitated to the point where she could not have made a phone call, and by the time a phone call came through, it was at the juncture where the Deputy Presiding Officer had already called the House together and adjourned the Sitting. So we are not making any judgments upon exactly what happened and why the Clerk moved the way she moved. In fact, it would have been highly inappropriate for us to do so. I would say this. The Legislature, for it to become even more efficient, there is a requirement, Madam Presiding Officer, (with all respect) that the age-old organizational structure that we have here, that must be changed; it must be updated. We cannot have the same organizational structure from 1996, or from 2001, or from 2013 - it has to evolve to meet the demands. This House has evolved. This House now has fifteen (15) seats, and because they so thought that they could have rushed and increased the number of seats to win an election, they did not even did the thing properly because the quorum of the House remains nine (9) when we have fifteen (15) elected Members in addition to four (4) Councillors. So we have a total membership around this horseshoe of nineteen (19). Nineteen (19) people are around the horseshoe and the quorum is still nine (9). The quorum did not move. That is another discussion for another time.
So, Madam Presiding Officer, respectfully to the Minority Leader and his Motion, I appreciate that he has provided an opportunity for us to give clear information on the matter, something that we resisted because we did not want to come across as though we are in the Assembly Legislature’s business. The Assembly Legislature is supposed to respond. In my respectful view, Madam Presiding Officer, there is nothing that prevents the Assembly Legislature at moments like this, from putting out public communications so that it is very clear what happened. That is my view. Of course, you got advice otherwise and you are free to take your advice.
Madam Presiding Officer, finally, if there is need for an investigation, the investigation should be done rightfully and truthfully by the Chief Administrator who has such remit in her powers as delegated.
Thank you. [Desk thumping]
The person who would most likely act or be called upon to act will be a junior public servant. If the public servant was of a higher range, almost seniority, more than likely that public servant would have already been in this place as Clerk of the House instead. So naturally, the person who should act will be someone with some less years experience, and so on. All of that was explained.
There is another thing that we are not paying attention to. Imagine, if at 1.30 p.m., there was no Clerk and we lay hands on somebody suddenly and say, “You ought to be the Clerk today”, how does that work for that public servant? This is a specialist area. In fact, I am of the view that unlike what happens in the House of Representatives where the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk are considered to be in a stream separate and apart from the rest of the public service, where people kind of get to grow up in the institution and get institutional knowledge - I wish that was the case here in Tobago. What we do, is that the moment this current Clerk steps out, the Chief Administrator will go through the system with the Director of Human Resources, and they will find whoever is the next most senior person on the island, and that would be the person who gets promoted. That person might never have any experience in this job and has to learn it from scratch. That is an unfortunate construct that we have.
I cannot take my seat without also saying that this is something I spoke about since last year. There are several positions in the public service already classified by the Cabinet, so Cabinet already did their part. The other part is for Service Commissions to do. Service Commissions go and Service Commissions come and they are just not doing it.
I met with the Chief Personnel Officer and the Public Service Commission last year. We had a big meeting at Magdalena. The entire board came up. We sat - I said, “Oh gosh, you all are stymieing our work”. I raised it then at that meeting. I said if something should really happen at the last minute, God forbid - what if the Clerk is on her way to the House and she just cannot get here - God forbid there is an accident - no Deputy Clerk - since 2004. On top of that, Madam Presiding Officer, it is only since we have been in office in February this year, when we felt like we were just waiting on the Chief Personnel Officer, waiting, waiting, that I took the position that we could not wait anymore. I said, let the Executive create a contract position called ‘Deputy Clerk’ or ‘Assistant Clerk’. That is the name we gave it - and let the Legislature advertise for the position or make a lateral movement for somebody on contract, because the THA is authorized to contract services for employment, especially in instances where there is a gap in the system. It was only in February this year that this happened. This current modern THA has sat like this, month after month since December of 1996. Mr. Hochoy Charles came; Mr. Orville London came; Mr. Kelvin Charles came; Mr. Ancil Dennis came - a series of Executives, and nobody addressed it. We are forced to have a stopgap measure which is a contracted arrangement, when really and truly, a position was classified since 2004. We should not have been in this positon at all. That brings me to another point - because I am hearing some has been trying to be relevant, trying to find relevance in the space - talking about who they trained and who they did not train. Who they trained cannot sit in as Clerk of the House. No regular contract officer could just get up and say, “I am acting as Clerk of the House today”. They would not have the standing to do that. The person’s job specification as per their contract does not allow them to act as Clerk of the House. Until the Executive - and in this case, the ball is now in the court of the Assembly Legislature - advertise and get somebody who is so contracted to do that duty, there will be no Deputy Clerk or Assistant Clerk. Many people are mixing up the roles of the Executive and the Legislature, and mixing them up very badly, and conveniently too. One of the things that happens for Sittings in case people do not know - we submit our Motions - as a matter of fact, the intent of the Executive and this Administration was to debate two Motions in the month of March. That is why for the first time, two Motions were on the Order Paper instead of one. We appreciated and expected that perhaps the first Motion will take up some time and we would not get to complete the second. We placed the two Motions on the Order paper because I had said since last year, that notwithstanding the minimal staff we have, (and there is another issue - one or two Hansard Officers and so on) we want to increase the number of Sittings per month from one to maybe at least two. We do not have the kind of trained staffing to go a lot more than that. In the Parliament in Trinidad, a Sitting could end two o’clock in the morning and another one starts at eight o’clock the following day. They have staff that rotates, staff on shift for Hansard Officers. We do not have that here. That speaks to a bigger question of how ready we are as an island for this autonomy thing and a greater, bigger House. All of those things have to be addressed administratively should the THA have two Houses as was proposed in at least one of the proposals that went down to Trinidad from Tobago. I think they call it the ‘People’s House’. If we are to really do that, we would need suitably qualified staff, and more of it.
I have known these two ladies for ‘donkey years’ - well, not for ‘donkey years’, because I have only been here since 2017 - the same persons I know. The person who deals with pension and so on here - the goodly lady might be well advanced in her seventies by now - retired long time. That is the nature of the Legislature that we have. I would be first in line to say that the Legislature that we have, is not properly and fully configured, but as an Executive, we submit our Motions to the House. Sometimes you get back a little note from the Clerk saying the Motion is improper - rewrite it - she is taking out this word. I and all get vex. I feel sometimes she is watering down the thing - I am being honest. She would send it back, but sometimes, you do some things and you send your notice through the Clerk to the Presiding Officer - that is the general stream. The Clerk notifies the Presiding Officer of the correspondence that comes in, like every other Member, but as an Executive, we do not run what happens inside the Legislature at all. Perhaps that is why staff could be employed on short term at the Minority Leader’s office and no Note has come to the Executive Council as yet. The Secretaries do not normally write Notes. The Minority is paid from out of the Legislature. We do not interfere in the Legislature’s business. There must be a separation between the Executive and the Legislature. To make it look as if it was the Executive why the Sitting did not happen, is really very dishonest. There is a complete separation. The Presiding Officer, based on both the THA Act and the Standing Orders, has full authority here. You would have seen a little while ago she told a Member her ruling was final, because the Standing Order even says that the Presiding Officer has the authority to interpret all the rules and regulations as she deems fit. If the House has a problem with this Presiding Officer, we only have one option. We would have to sit as a House, vote and put somebody else. That is the only option. We do not run this place. The Executive does not run this place.
Thank you very much, Madam Presiding Officer.
It was not an intention of mine to speak on this Motion, because I am of the view just as the Member for Bon Accord/Crown Point, that this Motion is ill-placed and ill-advised. As a matter of fact, everything about the Motion is sick. I keep hearing a repetition of flawed reasoning, flawed arguments, false information, notwithstanding the fact, that I believe the Assistant Secretary, Assemblyman Sampson as he puts it, was pellucidly clear. [Desk thumping}
On the day of the Sitting, unlike the Member for Roxborough/Argyle,I gave notice of my absence. As a matter of fact, let me put on the hansard record, that the only Member of this House who absented himself and continues to be absent without giving any notice, is the Member for Roxborough/Argyle. He is also the only Member of this House who up to this point, has never spent an entire Sitting in this House. I guess his priorities are now about being the Mayor of Port of Spain. An election is called so he has election business to do in Trinidad, so let him run and go.
He can continue to sell out Roxborough and Tobago for Port of Spain.
Back to the substantive Motion at hand.
I heard the Member, the Deputy Presiding Officer, indicated clearly, that no prior notice was given for the absence of the Clerk of the House prior to the time of the Sitting. Attempts were made to get on to the Clerk and no one got on to her, and an official line of communication only came through after he adjourned the Sitting.
Madam Presiding Officer, it could have easily been assumed that the Clerk who perhaps was not here in the morning, would have turned up for a Sitting at 1.30 p.m. So I can very well see why no alarm was raised earlier, but the material fact that guides what transpired, is the fact that (as the Minority Councillor said) ‘communication was not had’. I do not want to assume why communication did not happen with those responsible -1 do not want to assume that.
However, I want to say clearly, that it is improper for this House to enter into an investigation that actually leads to investigating the Clerk of the House. If the Clerk acted inappropriately, if the Clerk violated the terms of employment as a public servant, the person in my humble view and in the legal view who ought to trigger an investigation and treat with the matter, is the Chief Administrator. That is the law - not this House. [Desk thumping]
Further, I heard the Deputy Presiding Officer - he could have fooled me - I thought he was a lawyer because he demonstrated good understanding, not just of the legal opinion he got, but how things ought to have happened. [Desk thumping]
The Deputy Presiding Officer stated a short while ago, that when we look at how a Clerk is selected in Tobago versus how a Clerk is selected in Trinidad, that there are two (2) different methods. While the Standing Order and the law are silent on what to do if both the Presiding Officer and the Clerk are absent, the THA Act is very clear as to the roles, functions and who should appoint the Clerk of the House. The THA Act - not the Standing Order - because the THA Act defines the Clerk of the House and the Clerk’s function in a particular way. No Standing Order, not even the one in Port of Spain, can supersede Act 40 of 1996. [Desk thumping] I sat and I listened clearly as the Deputy Presiding Officer schooled us all on how this thing ought to work, and somehow that is just being ignored.
I go further, Madam Presiding Officer. I am also certain that the Deputy Presiding Officer said that he did not get the benefit of legal advice in the moment. I will say in my opinion, there is one mistake that the Deputy Presiding Officer made on that day, which is in my opinion, he should not have adjourned the Sitting himself. He should have called on the Leader of Assembly Business to adjourn the Sitting as opposed to adjourning it himself. However, he is correct in saying that the two (2) minutes and change constitutes a meeting of the House. As a matter of fact, we could have easily met here today and decided as a body before we even debated this Motion, that we were going to adjourn the Sitting, and this Sitting will in fact, count as a Sitting. A meeting is not counted only when all of the items on the Order Paper are dispatched with; a meeting is counted once the Presiding Officer or the Deputy Presiding Officer calls the House to order. So a meeting in fact, did happen. It did not collapse - it was adjourned. I am of the opinion - I am no lawyer - an adjournment should have been done through the Leader of Assembly Business. That is my opinion, but I am not going to beat up on the Deputy Presiding Officer for that. If he did not have legal advice and he decided notwithstanding not having legal advice, he was here as Deputy Presiding Officer - the Presiding Officer saying she had no prior notice that the Clerk would be absent - everybody was scrambling trying to call the Clerk to see who was present and what arrangements were made. Did you talk to anybody? No answer.
For good reason, the Clerk could have been incapacitated and could not answer -1 do not know. As I said, it is not my place to make that judgment from here, I do not know - but I got no response from the Clerk.
The Chief Administrator was contacted. She said, “Well, I do not
know. Nobody told me anything; nobody told me that the Clerk would be absent and I had no conversation with anybody else about acting in place of the Clerk”.
In this regard, Madam Presiding Officer, the Minority is therefore calling for a comprehensive, independent investigation into the collapse of the Fifteenth Sitting of the Tobago House of Assembly. We see this as necessary to uphold the rule of law and to address any legal implications that may arise due to the collapse of the Sitting. We also see this as a way to ensure accountability and transparency, as well as to prevent any future incidents such as this.
So, Madam Presiding Officer, we believe that this issue has to be addressed head on, and it will go a long way in restoring public confidence.
Additionally, Madam Presiding Officer, by examining the circumstances thoroughly, we in this House can be able to take appropriate actions to rectify the situation and implement whatever policies are required to strengthen the functioning of this Assembly.
Madam Presiding Officer the Minority is calling for an investigation into the circumstances of March 23rd, 2023 - the collapse of the Fifteenth Sitting.
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. [Desk thumping]
Madam Presiding Officer, Tobagonians are asking questions: How is it that the absence of the Clerk at the Fourth and the Eight Sittings did not prevent the House from convening, but at the Fifteenth Sitting, the absence of the Clerk caused the business of the people and the business of this House not to occur?
Madam Presiding Officer, what Tobagonians are also saying, is that the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Fifteenth Sitting has demonstrated how uncaring this Administration really is. A senior member of staff (it was indicated) did not show up - did not call; did not report - and in the statement given by the Deputy Presiding Officer, there seems to be no empathy that this senior member of staff was not here, and we did not hear from the person. There was no empathy, no care, and the Deputy Presiding Officer just alluded to the fact that they threw the Clerk under the bus.A senior member of staff, on a very important day, did not show up and they did not care about what happened to that senior member of staff.
Madam Presiding Officer, that is appalling and as Tobagonians, we pride ourselves as a caring people and a caring society. On the day of that Sitting, care was not demonstrated; empathy was not demonstrated. The well-being of the employee who was absent, was not demonstrated. Again, we beg to ask the question, what was the real reason why the House was not convened? What was the real reason? Tobagonians are asking the question, and up to this time, we have not received a plausible answer as to why this Sitting had to collapse. Precedence was set where in the absence someone deputized and the business of the people and the business of the House continued.
Madam Presiding Officer, I go back again to the Deputy Presiding Officer’s statement. In his opening statement to honourable Members, he Stated:
“The delay in the starting of the day’s Sitting was owing to the fact that the Clerk of the House did not turn up for duty and that was done without any notification to the Presiding Officer or to the Deputy Presiding Officer.”
Madam Presiding Officer, the statement further indicated, “that the Standing Orders were silent on what to do in the absence of the Clerk.” Notwithstanding that, the Deputy Presiding Officer said that on the day of the collapse and of the Sitting, we were fully aware that this Administration knows what to do when the Standing Orders of the Assembly are silent on a matter. It was the same Members of this Administration who were advising under the 6/6, because the Standing Orders were silent on the Assembly to draw straws, to go to Standing Order 92 and referred to the Standing
Orders of the House of Representatives. How then they knew that when the Standing Orders of this House is silent, they could go there and draw straws? In this instance, they refused to go to the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives when he indicated, Madam Presiding Officer, in his statement, that the Standing Orders is silent. A lot more questions than answers, and the question still remains, what was the real reason for the collapse of the Fifteenth Sitting?
Madam Presiding Officer, the Minority Leader would have demonstrated what is required when the Standing Order (in particular this one) as it relates to the Clerk, is silent. The Standing Orders in the House of Representatives would have defined the Clerk, as well as the practice in the absence of the Clerk.
Madam Presiding Officer, the inability to convene the Fifteenth Sitting on March 23rd- 2023, has brought this House into public odium, and it was indeed an embarrassing incident. Some commentators had even gone as far as to call the actions on that day, treason. This Assembly that was once held in high esteem has become a laughing stock of the people of Tobago, Trinidad and the region, because this made regional news. We saw that there is a lack of transparency; accountability; a lack of respect; a lack of leadership and governance and a growing level of mistrust among the people.
The unfolding of the events at the Fifteenth Plenary Sitting has caused burning questions from many Tobagonians. Again, I am happy with some of the accounts of the Deputy Presiding Officer.
Some of the questions of the public were: What really occurs in the preparation for a Sitting? This significant and single most important event of this House for the month, Tobagonians were asking: How does the Assembly Legislature prepare for a Sitting? What stood out for many Tobagonians, was that there may have been lack of communication, leadership and management. It is troubling to think that only moments prior to the Sitting, it was observed that the Clerk was not present on the day of the Sitting, Madam Presiding Officer. That is unacceptable. So who manages what is happening? To me, there should have been communication about ensuring that things were in place - everything was in place for the Sitting. To my mind, Madam Presiding Officer, the absence of the Clerk should have been known or ought to have been known earlier than the accounts.
Madam Presiding Officer, because things were being managed then, the Chief Administrator (as the Deputy Presiding Officer would have indicated) should have been contacted and arrangements should have been put in place. We should not have come here only to find out that the Clerk was not here.
Madam Presiding Officer, that is unacceptable. The views of the Minority and many Tobagonians, is that it is irresponsible.
Madam Presiding Officer, one of the questions again that some Tobagonians were asking is, when did we recognize that the Clerk was not in the House? What was put in place to ensure that in the absence of the Clerk, the business of this House was dispensed with? Tobagonians were asking in this particular matter, what was the role of the Chief Administrator in all that occurred? What was the role of the Leader of Assembly Business? What was the role of the Chief Secretary as well as the Deputy Chief Secretary in all that would have transpired?
Madam Presiding Officer, it can be seen that there was some sort of breakdown in communication. This Administration continues to make history on this island of Tobago. The history that is being made is not in a positive light. Once again, this Administration has demonstrated an inability to govern.
Madam Presiding Officer, I want to refer to the statement of the Deputy Presiding Officer on the day in question. The Deputy Presiding Officer would have quoted section 67 of the THA Act. He read:
“Additionally, section 67 (and this is in part) of the THA Act 40 of 1996 says:
“The Clerk shall keep, in proper form, a record of the proceedings of each meeting of the Assembly”.
This is the Deputy Presiding Officer continuing:
“In the absence of the Clerk, no one is so legally authorized to keep a proper recording of the proceedings of today’s Sitting”.
Madam Presiding Officer, notwithstanding the statement of the Deputy Presiding Officer on that day, the Minority Leader would have demonstrated that in this said House, under this same Administration, in this same Sitting, there were two (2) instances where the Clerk of the House was absent and the House continued because another member of staff deputized. [Crosstalk]
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for his account of what transpired on that day, which is not totally our account on this minority side of what transpired on that day.
So, the Minority came into this Chamber on March 23rd, 2023, prepared and ready to dispense with the business of the people, Madam Presiding Officer. As we are all aware, it has become a practice of this House that the Sittings are generally delayed. So, five (5) minutes, ten (10) minutes went, and we recognized that the Sitting did not convene. After more than twenty (20) minutes, Madam Presiding Officer, sitting here, Members were asking what was happening. The Minority also enquired as to why there was such a delay in the convening of the House. Madam Presiding Officer, the Minority Leader spoke with the Leader of Assembly Business, so I do not understand how today, the Deputy Presiding Officer could report that we were not in the House; that we were not present.
Further, Madam Presiding Officer, in conversation with the Leader of Assembly Business, the Minority Leader was advised that it appeared that the Clerk was not in the House. Firstly, we looked around (because we were trying to deduce what was causing the delay) and we counted to make sure that there was a quorum in keeping with the Standing Order, and there were indeed nine (9) Members. As the enquiries continued, we heard that the Presiding Officer was not present and the Deputy Presiding Officer will be deputizing in the absence of the Presiding Officer.
We were further advised that the Clerk was not present for the Sitting, and there may be a need to cancel the Sitting because of the absence of the Clerk, and therefore, the Sitting could not continue. So, we as a responsible minority also tried to seek clarity and further advice on what we were being told. We were also advised to hold on because a formal announcement will be made. Again, as a responsible minority, we started making calls. We called the Parliament; we called different persons who are part of this House to enquire if in fact the Clerk was not here, if the House really required to be suspended.
So, Madam Presiding Officer, one of the advice that we got in our conversation was actually to communicate with the Deputy Presiding Officer. So, we were on our way to communicate with the Deputy Presiding Officer to enquire what was really happening. We then heard that the Deputy Presiding Officer came to the House, and because we were outside, we were not allowed to come back in. So again, it is disingenuous, Madam Presiding Officer, to say that we were not here. [Interruption]
Madam Presiding Officer, we left to go and see the Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer came in and we know the House rules. I could not re-enter while he was on his feet. As soon as he was off his feet, we were back in the House. So to say that we were absent is
very disingenuous - very dishonest. [Crosstalk] So if I go out to utilize the bathroom?
Madam Presiding Officer, if it is one thing when you are presenting a case, you must have evidence.
On my phone, I have a recording of two minutes and 45 seconds when I came into this goodly House and stated what I did. The Minority Leader and the Minority Councillor were not in the House. Outside of the House is not inside of the House. [Desk thumping] [Laughter]
As Deputy Presiding Officer, I used the powers vested in me, in Standing Orders 9 (1), to convene the Sitting and to adjourn it quickly. This Standing Order could not have given me the authority to appoint someone to act as Clerk of the House, since the law makes provision for the appointment of a Clerk of the House. Standing Order 9 (1) only comes into play when there exist no provision. The said day that someone deputized in this House, the Presiding Officer was present, and therefore, Standing Order 11(1) was not required. [Desk thumping]
Also, after getting legal advice which came after the fact - the Sitting that had happened and was adjourned by me, is in law, also considered a proper meeting. So, the House in fact met and the Minority Leader’s absence was noted as he was not present at the time of the meeting. [Interruption]
“...the Deputy Presiding Officer or such other Member of the Assembly elected by the Members to preside. Standing Order 9(1) provides that the Presiding Officer shall have power to regulate the conduct of business in all matters not provided in the Standing Orders.”
It must be noted here, Madam Presiding Officer, based on the legal opinion, whenever there is an absent Clerk of the House, someone can and should be appointed to act. The question this House must ask itself today is, who is authorized to appoint someone to act as the Clerk of the House? Can the substantive Presiding Officer show up and appoint someone to act as Clerk of the House? The answer to that is, no. Can I, as Deputy Presiding Officer, appoint someone to act? The answer is, no. Can the Chief Secretary appoint someone to act? The answer is, no. Can this House vote and appoint someone to act? The answer is, no. Can the Clerk herself appoint someone to act in the manner of a Clerk in the House of Representative? Can someone else appoint someone to act? The answer is still no. The reason why we can just mimic the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives in this instance, is because in Trinidad they define the Clerk of the House as any person authorized by the Clerk to perform any of the functions or exercise any of the powers of the Clerk under the Standing Orders, while the THA Act is superior to any Standing Orders defining the Clerk of the House as the person holding or acting in the office established under section 72.
Madam Presiding Officer, the only person in Tobago authorized to appoint someone to act as Clerk of the House as established under section 72, is the Chief Administrator under delegated authority, legal Notice 105 for Public Servants, [Desk thumping] like the Clerk of the House who is in group 5.
Madam Presiding Officer, unlike in Trinidad where the Clerk can appoint, the Clerk of the House and Deputy Clerk of the House are in a stream isolated from the rest of the Public Service, while our Clerk comes from among the ranks of the regular Public Service. [Desk thumping]
It is only the Chief Administrator in Tobago who can appoint a Clerk in the House. If the Chief Administrator was not notified by the Clerk that she would not be in office, then the Chief Administrator just did not have enough time to select the next-in-line senior public servant to act in the position. Truth, a matter of fact, we had only heard from the Clerk after I had spoken in the House. So, she only communicated to us after she was thrown under the bus. [Desk thumping] So, essentially, Madam Presiding Officer, if the Clerk of the House had notified someone in a timely manner, someone could have been appointed to act as the Clerk of the House. There goes the investigation that is needed. [Crosstalk]
Choosing to extend the benefit of the doubt, I patiently waited for some additional time, understanding that unforeseen circumstances can arise. Regrettably, it soon became apparent that the Clerk would not be joining us. In light of this development, I promptly contacted the Presiding Officer to discuss the matter, and enquired about any prior notification regarding her absence. The substantive Presiding Officer indicated that she had no prior knowledge of the Clerk being absent.
The Chief Administrator was then contacted.
Based on legal procedures of the THA, the Chief Administrator is the only one authorized to appoint a Clerk to act in the event of the absence of the Clerk of the House. [Desk thumping] The Chief Administrator indicated that she was not aware that the Clerk would be absent from the House, and therefore, no measure was put in place for a temporary replacement. Given that she was only learning about this at the said time of the Sitting, she was not in a position to act in the position of Clerk of the House herself.
I heard the Minority made mention that at previous Sittings there was a junior staff sitting in. That was because notice was given and a recommendation was put forward. [Desk thumping] By this time, it was well past the start of the time for the Sitting and Members were waiting, clueless about what was actually happening. Having exhausted all measures to get a Clerk for the House, I took it upon myself to hurriedly prepare a note to address the Assembly, providing a comprehensive briefing and highlighting the relevant laws and provisions outlined in the Standing Order that accounted for the resulting delay, while at the same time, acknowledging the absence of those who sent notices of their absence beforehand.
It became evident to me that I needed to treat with the day’s proceedings with an abundance of caution. I am not an attorney, not even the bush variety and I did not have the benefit of legal advice at the time.
After sharing the details, I had meticulously prepared and made the decision to adjourn the Sitting out of an abundance of caution - the Members of the House did in fact sit, but I must say that at the time of that short Sitting, the Minority Leader and the Minority Councillor were absent. [Desk thumping] Subsequent to the Sitting, I asked through the Presiding Officer’s office, for a legal opinion and one was sought and provided, and I wish to share aspects of that report with the House today. The legal opinion was provided by Deborah Peake, Senior Counsel. In her opinion she said, and I quote:-
“While this Standing Order assigns specific functions to the Clerk where the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer are absent, section 69 of the Act is clear, that the Standing Orders made by the Assembly are subject to provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Standing Order cannot trump the provisions of the Act, such as sections 64 and 65, as the Act is primary legislation. It is to be expected, that if the Clerk is unavoidably absent for any reason, someone can be assigned the responsibility of performing the functions of her office so that the business of the legislature can proceed...” [Interruption]
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I threw my corn and I called no fowls.
I arrived punctually as usual, eagerly anticipating confirmation of a quorum before commencing the proceedings. The Presiding Officer was away on official duties, for which the Clerk of the House had dutifully organized. I was made aware that I was needed to deputize for the entire Sitting well in advance. It can be assumed that the Clerk of the House was also aware of that fact, since the Clerk of the House was the one who approved and organized the duty for the Presiding Officer. However, sometime after my arrival in the Legislature, I was informed that the Clerk of the House had not yet arrived, and attempts to reach her had proven unsuccessful. When I listened to the Minority who stated that the Clerk was contacted - I do not know if she had contacted him, but alas, I know she ought to have contacted the Presiding Officer, and if the Presiding Officer was not present, she should contact the Deputy Presiding Officer. [Desk thumping] [Interruption]
Firstly, I want to thank the electoral district of Bon Accord/Crown Point for allowing me this opportunity to represent them in this august House.
Madam Presiding Officer, this Motion is ill advised and ill placed for today’s Sitting. This Motion only serves to have this House debate the actions and inactions of the Clerk of the House, and will only serve to embarrass the public officer.
Further, there are prescribed rules and regulations that guide on how to treat with public servants such as the Clerk of this House, when there are alleged misleads. This House, in this setting, is not the most appropriate place to address these concerns. Notwithstanding, as the Deputy Presiding Officer and the one that presided over the Sitting which occurred on March 23rd, 2023, the ‘adjourned’ and not ‘cancelled’ was valid, despite the brief time span, hence the reason, the consecutive numbers for Sittings rolled on.
At this point, I wish to recap a complete run of events, so that it will be pellucidly clear to all and sundry what happened and how it happened.
[Departure of the Member for Roxborough/Argyle while saying ‘Pop goes the weasel’. [Interruption] [Laughter]
When they wanted to move from the cotton dollar to the polymer dollar, do you know what they did? Saturday meeting - whole day meeting - ran it through. When they wanted to move from the Stabilization Act to the Industrial Relations Act - one (1) day they passed the same thing quickly through the Parliament.
There is no Executive that is superior to any Assembly - none! I wish to repeat. Some people think this is “the Tobago House of Augustine” - they think that kind of way. So when they see you, they talk to you as they want inside the House - walk out and say that they have something else to go and do, and all kinds of things - they could give blind people keys and take them back. Some people, Madam Presiding Officer, feel this House is “the House of Augustine”, I said ‘some people’ - I am not casting any stones today. I am just saying some people may have it in their minds, but this is the House of Assembly, and in this House, we give directions to the Assembly. We are the legal body (even though we do not make laws) so entitled to make laws, and whatsoever we bind in here, is bound.
This is a critical body, and not to meet at least once a month, is as vile and as wrong as the President of the country not administering the oath to an Assemblyman, and he comes in as an Assemblyman. It is as vile and wrong as the Assembly not holding itself out for four (4) years, but going rather for six years. It is as wrong as that. All of these would have been incorporated in a statement - ‘Shall’ be four years - ‘shall’.
I almost trembled when I saw the Motion brought by the Minority Leader. I do not know if you understand the dynamite we have here. Sometimes people think that they are right until they end up in the Privy Council with urgent action, and they recognize what they did was a big violation. The House has indeed collapsed.
Immediately, on March 23rd, 2023, I recall I took to my Facebook page, and said, “The House has collapsed”. I used those words. It is not that they do not know what to do. Each of these Secretaries have legal departments and advisers - each of them. They are not lacking knowledge or counsel. None of them are without advice. They are coming inside here, run the Tobago House of Assembly to the ground and pretend that because they held a meeting in April and they are keeping one in May, that all this is legal. You cannot correct this. This can only be corrected by an amendment in the Parliament. Are you hearing what I am saying to you? This can only be corrected by an amendment in the Parliament. They have to amend this. I do not know if ‘shall’ in this sentence does not make much sense. This ‘shall’ leaves an excuse for your personal behaviour, but the ‘shall’ where they use when the President is quoted as having to administer the oath, is mandatory, but the ‘shall’ here is not mandatory. How do you know which ‘shall’ is mandatory and which is not? My Colleagues are making a lot of big mistakes. Not only are they talking out of time, but they are also acting out of time. Such an action required you to postpone it to another day immediately, and try to rectify things for another day within the month. They left it. As far as they understand, they are in charge - you cannot tell them anything.
I wish to lay today before this House, that I hear bells ringing. They are not Christmas bells. They are bells that give the voting public of Tobago a joy that exceeds the Christmas joy. I hear the bells are ringing. It is not just the Local Government bells in Trinidad, but I hear the bells are ringing in Tobago. It would seem as if the Prime Minister was being prophetic when he said, “Before you register your party, see about elections one time”. The breach is there. It is an open breach. I want this House to record this today.
This cannot be fixed with a laugh or drinks and a skin teeth. This is serious business. ‘Shall’ is ‘shall’.
Somebody went to Court - now they amended and have allowed Councillors and Aidermen in Trinidad to go beyond the three (3) year stay on several occasions - it was a normal thing they did. One day a man decided to challenge that and say, “You cannot kick in any law now, to extend the life of these Councillors that is nearly expired, to four (4) years. You cannot do that.” The Judge at the Civil Court level said, “No, go ahead, continue, their life have been extended”. The Judges at the Appeal Court said, “their hires are properly extended.” When they went to the Law Lords, they said it was wrong, it was not properly extended. That is for the new people who are coming in because people have rights.
If this Assembly is a corporate body, this Assembly must obey its own rules, and the rules are embodied in the Tobago House of Assembly Act. There is no subservient laws, no secondary laws that could trump the Act. What they can do, is to explain it further, but they cannot trump or annul any portion of that Act. No Act could trump the Constitution.
Madam Presiding Officer, I am calling on my Colleagues on that side today, to set the date for THA elections. Tobagonians are fed up of this type of (to use the words of my Colleague) ‘muddy pot’; they are fed up of that. People need to be serious when they are in office.
I would not go in with the latest news for the week - that is good entertainment for the week, but for now, we have to get our act together in this House. Let my Colleagues on that side call elections and let them call it now.
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.
I must admit that I have not been here for a while, and a lot of things have changed and they are indeed changing in the House.
As I said, when you are told the President shall administer the oath to an Assemblyman, how come they did not play with that? How come they did not say, “Let that police officer administer the oath” because she is taking too long to come? How come they did not say, “Let the Clerk of the House administer the oath” because they did not like how the President did it? How come they did not do that? The word ‘shall’ is an imperative command - it is not optional; it is mandatory. It is not something to play with. How come when it said that the Chief Secretary’s salary shall be equal to that of a Minister, they did not pay him like a CEPEP worker? How come they did not pay him like a URP worker? How come they did not pay him like a regular clerk? Because the word ‘shall’ in law, is an imperative command. It is mandatory. How come when they say that the Assembly shall continue for four years, they did not play with that? How come they did not take it to five, six or seven, or just drop it at two - because they understand ‘shall’ in law. How come when it is said that the Assembly shall not be responsible for items under the Sixth Schedule, they did not pretend that they are responsible for National Security, Immigration and these issues? How come they did not play with that? The law says that we shall not be responsible for that. ‘Shall’ is a command and shall not be played with. How come when it says that the Executive Council shall be responsible for carrying out the functions of the Assembly under section 34, they did not play with that? Here, in this House,there is a group - and I want to be careful with my words because I know when I speak, everyone listens, and I like that - you can hear the silence in the room. How could we allow the group on that side to play with the word ‘shall’? Here in section 65 - and it is not over - I want to let them know that. Our right to challenge what happened two months ago is not over; it is not out of the door as yet. I serve notice to my Colleagues here today.
Section 65 says, “the Assembly shall hold ... (shall again), how could we play with that shall ... an ordinary meeting as often as it is required - (every week, everyday, twice a month) and at least once a month”. So on March 23rd, 2023, when a meeting was called, we came here and the meeting could not have been concluded, because of whatever they felt was the reason. It is okay to feel anything; it is okay to believe anything; but one thing you must know, is that the law does not govern this House. The Tobago House of Assembly is a corporate body. It has its own rules. Yes, these rules are found in the Tobago House of Assembly Act. One just cannot break them and remain the Tobago House of Assembly. So when on that day, March 23rd’ 2023, the House failed to start, there was the 24th March; there was the 25th March; there was the 26th March; there was the 27th March; there was the 28th March; there was the 29th March and the 30th March to conclude the business, because the law must be fulfilled. They are today posing as intelligentsia or as knowledge-based people who are derived of the basic knowledge that governs this House, and so they are walking around with the sharp suits, spike heels, (the ‘red bottoms’ as they call it) but mentally they are poor; they are weak - making this place the laughing stock, Madam Presiding Officer. People are chuckling.
Let me tell you this. The Prime Minister, my political enemy, understood and understands the law. So when the Privy Council ruled that what they were doing was not right, immediately (though he hemmed and he hawed; he this and he that, and said we nearly got it right) he admitted that they will go to the Parliament and pass an amendment to legitimize the action done by these Councillors and Aidermen from 3rd December (that is when the period expired) to the 18th May when the judgment was given. There must be something to correct the law when it is broken or when there is a breach of contract. What they did was incorrect, Madam Presiding Officer. What did my Colleagues who lack parliamentary and proper knowledge do on that side to correct this? Nothing! Time is ticking. When the clock ticks, there are two sounds - a tick and a tock - tick-tock, tick-tock. If you only hear one, something is wrong with you. Somehow, they failed to correct the malady, the disease. They failed to correct their error and they continue to pose and talk about no one was assigned to the post as if they know what they are saying. They do not even know what they are saying. This is not a matter for the Clerk. It is the law here that kicks in and the law is straightforward - “The Assembly shall meet as often as it is required, and (not ‘or’) at least once a month. Nothing is wrong with postponing a meeting for the day - nothing is wrong with that. One could still put it off. As a matter of fact, there could even have been a meeting on a Sunday or a Saturday.
This is not up for debate; this is not based on gut feelings; this is not based on the Clerk of the House. This is the law. It is binding. The word ‘shall’ takes on a special significance in law. It is a command that must be carried out. It is not optional. I ask myself as I ponder on the level of mental poverty that is being displayed by some of my Colleagues, would any of them break any of these laws? I quote six or seven. The seventh would be the first one I have just debated here. Would any of them put God out of their thoughts and not have an Assembly seal, when section 5 (2) of the THA Act says, “the Assembly shall have a seal”. Would they allow that here? Would the Assembly be the Assembly if it does not have a seal? That is the question. The word ‘shall’ is an imperative command. It is not optional. If it says in section 5, “The Assembly shall have a seal”, then the Assembly had better have a seal. It says that the President shall administer the oath to Assemblymen in section six (6) of the Tobago House of Assembly Act. Are they going to play with that? Are we going to pussyfoot with that? Are we going to play eeny meeny miny moe with that? [Interruption]
Madam Presiding Officer, I thank you. It is a while since I have not been to this House. Indeed, a lot has happened and a lot is happening.
The Motion before us this afternoon is a serious one. It is extremely serious. We are dealing with the violation of primary law - fundamental law that binds the State, and no secondary law. No Standing Orders can violate primary law. Those who sit here are not as educated as they position themselves to be. They are grasping at straws because somehow, they are politically drowning. They seek to make this House a mockery, a laughing stock to the world, whereby people who are looking on through the Web - that we do not know what we are doing here. I want to make it absolutely plain today, Madam Presiding Officer, to my Colleagues on the other side that it is time to read the Tobago House of Assembly Act.
Section 65 is uncompromising in its imposition upon the Assembly. It is uncompromising. Allow me to read it, or I could rehash it. It says:
“The Assembly shall hold an ordinary meeting as often as its business may require and not ‘or’ at least once every month”.
In this case, the Standing Orders of this House is clear on the process of what should happen in this Chamber if the Presiding Officer is absent. It also provides that if the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer are both absent, what should happen.
Madam Presiding Officer, I thank you. [Desk thumping]
So therefore, this House operates without a Deputy Clerk of the House.
Now, the Minority Leader made reference - apparently he possessed information that the Clerk was ill; that her absence was due to something. I want to point out to the Minority Leader - he made mention a while ago and I hope I understood him - that the Clerk could have authorized someone else to perform her duties. Let me say to the Minority Leader, that the Clerk has no authority to appoint any officer to sit in a public service post in this Assembly Legislature. She holds no such authority. So to flippantly say that the Clerk could have appointed another officer to do - that cannot happen, Minority Leader. It cannot happen. I am not going to be long.
You made mention - you keep referring to Standing Order 92. Standing Order 92 is only relevant if the Standing Orders of this House is silent. [Crosstalk]
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.
Allow me to read Standing Order 11(1) again.
“When the Presiding Officer is unavoidably absent from any day’s Sitting, an announcement of the Presiding Officer’s absence shall be made by the Clerk at the table of the House. The Deputy Presiding Officer shall then take the Chair and shall be vested with all the powers of the Presiding Officer as if the Presiding Officer was in the Chair.”
So, to the Minority Leader, I want to break this down. It was a known fact that the Presiding Officer was absent. There is a requirement under the Standing Orders that I have just read, that the Clerk of this House must/shall make an announcement about the absence of the Presiding Officer - ‘shall be made by the Clerk’ - no other Member or person in this House... at the table of the House.” I want to point out to us, that if the Clerk is absent, there is not a Deputy Clerk in this Assembly Legislature.
Let me inform you, that the Office of Deputy Clerk was created by Cabinet Minute No. 2886, dated October 14th, 2004, and to date it remains unclassified. That simply means, that when the position was created by the Cabinet, it was not placed in a salary range on the staff establishment. Therefore, the classification and the requirement for such has to be done by the Personnel Department. [Crosstalk]
The Motion reads:
“WHEREAS Section 65 (1) of the Tobago House of Assembly Act, Chapter 25:03 provides that the Assembly shall hold an ordinary meeting at least once every month, or as often as its business may require;
AND WEHREAS on March 23, 2023, there was an embarrassing collapse of the 15th Sitting of the Tobago House of Assembly Legislature;
AND WHEREAS the House was adjourned in violation of the Standing Orders and based on patently erroneous advice that the Clerk’s absence precluded the House from convening;
AND WHEREAS this collapse resulted in a flagrant breach of the law, bringing this most august House into public odium, and exposure of legal challenge;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House conducts a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances which caused the reprehensive incident which occurred during the 15th Siting of the Tobago House of Assembly Legislature on March 23, 2023;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this investigation be completed no later than June 30, 2023 and laid in this Assembly at the earliest sitting thereafter.”
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. This afternoon we heard words like ‘embarrassing’ and so on, but the first thing I want to draw to the attention of the Minority Leader, is that when he comes to this House and he does not want to embarrass himself, he must learn to quote the law as it is stated.
Section 65 (1) of the Tobago House of Assembly Act Chap. 25:03 of
Act 40 of 1996 reads:
“The Assembly shall hold an ordinary meeting as often as its business may require and at least once every month.”
Do not play with the words; do not turn them around; do not put them where they do not belong. When you are quoting law, quote law in its correct format.
The Standing Order of this Assembly 16(1) reads:
“Subject to Paragraph (2) of this Standing Order, the Assembly shall meet at least once every month on the fourth Thursday at 1.30 in the afternoon but it may hold Ordinary Meetings as often as its business may require.”
I want to say to the House, on that fateful day, March 23rd' 2023, there was an ordinary meeting called; there was a quorum - all was in place. A quorum is required; a quorum was in place, but the Presiding Officer was not in the Chair on that day. I want to take this House to Standing Order 11 which reads:
“When the Presiding Officer is unavoidably absent from any day’s Sitting, an announcement of the Presiding Officer’s absence shall be made by the Clerk at the table of the House.”
I repeat. [Interruption]
Therefore, not only is that matter embarrassing, but it is one that has far- reaching, legal consequences for this House. It therefore means, that any Member, any citizen, any resident of Tobago by virtue of what transpired on March 23rd’ 2023, can now take legal action against this entire Assembly because we failed on that opportunity, to do that which the law prescribes. The law prescribes that we meet at least once. We can meet multiple times, but at least once, and that is the fourth Thursday of that month, and we did not. The cancellation of the Assembly meeting on March 23rd' 2023, had the effect of frustrating or preventing without reasonable justification, the ability of the Assembly to cany out its constitutional and legislative functions as a Legislature, and as the body responsible for supervising this Executive Council. The cancellation of the Assembly on that day was therefore unlawful and a full and speedy investigation is therefore required.
Madam Presiding Officer, this issue leaves one with so many questions - more questions than answers. I hope when the speakers come, they will tell us who advised the Deputy Presiding Officer to suspend/adjourn the Sitting in the most unlawful way. In fact, you would have recognized we had two (2) Sittings thereafter - because the Sitting, while we were told it was suspended/adjourned, was improperly done.
Therefore, it still leaves the question, what is the status of that Fifteenth Sitting of the Assembly? Nobody has really answered that question up to this day. What is the status - because we have moved on to the Sixteenth and we moved on to the Seventeenth - of that very Sitting that was so unlawfully and illegally adjourned?
Madam Presiding Officer, the very Deputy Presiding Officer must also tell us who advised him and what was the reason. I suspect the information that was put in the public domain, was very damaging to a public officer. That information humbly and respectfully I believe, should be corrected in this honourable House. What the information by effect did, was to tell all the world that a public officer abandoned her post, which as far as the information is coming, was untrue. Therefore, that officer deserves an apology. [Desk thumping}
Madam Presiding Officer, I believe we must also understand whether it was deliberate - because I am trying to figure out why would you so implicate and try to embarrass, so that which you tried to embarrass, you ended up embarrassing yourself. We met here as a House on the Fourth Sitting, and I also responded to the Budget debate while the Clerk was absent, but the business of the House was carried out.
Madam Presiding Officer, as I wrap up, respectfully I accept the Motion that I had to debate on, but of course, I hope that you appreciate the intention of this Minority in bringing this Motion, want to openly declare that this Administration is clueless. Here you have an Administration basically approving a precedence and then in the same breath, disapproving the precedence.
Madam Presiding Officer, I do not know what else to say about what is happening, but it is very sad; it is very unfortunate and in layman terms, it looks like muddy pot. We really look as if we are carrying on muddy pot in this House. Long time children used to play, play, play, play. It is looking like we do not know what we are about. I hope that this honourable House would agree with this Motion of the Minority, for us to have a proper, independent investigation so that something like this never in the history of the Tobago House of Assembly (THA), repeats itself.
Madam Presiding Officer, with those words, I beg to move this Motion that stands in my name.
I thank you.
Okay, we have time to talk - let us talk.
So, Madam Presiding Officer, all it really required was a simple call and we could have appointed anyone. The fact is (and I need to reiterate this fact) that we would have done it already right in this House, right in this term. So, the precedence is there - we really did not need any back and forth about this. Even if you wanted, a simple reading of the Standing Orders would have allowed the meeting of the Assembly to proceed. A simple act on the part of the Clerk to authorize someone to perform her functions would have allowed the business of the people of Tobago to continue uninterrupted. I dare say, that if the Standing Orders were properly understood by those who lead this Assembly, there would have been absolutely no cancellation of the meeting on March 23rd, 2023, and for Mr. Anthony James to be crying everyday that we need some kind of resolution on this.
Madam Presiding Officer, it is in these circumstances that we must call this House to instruct that the Assembly Legislature launch a full and independent investigation into the circumstances which caused the embarrassing collapse of the Fifteenth Sitting of the Assembly on March 23rd, 2023, and that the investigation be completed by no later than June 30th 2023 and laid at the Sitting of the Assembly thereafter.
Additionally, we make this call because this Assembly has now been exposed to the possibility of legal action by its failure to hold a meeting in accordance with section 65 (1) of the THA Act. This is a very serious matter brought on by the negligence, the incompetence of those that lead this Assembly. The failure to hold the Assembly Sitting in accordance with the legislative framework, is a breach of the democratic principles which underpin our twin island State.
Section 1 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago provides that, “the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago shall be a Sovereign Democratic State”.
It was the failure to hold Parliamentary Sittings that got the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in the coarse years of the UK Supreme Court, and this matter on the application of Miller - Appellant, versus the Prime Minister respondent 2019. UK case No. 41 - a case brought by some citizens of the United Kingdom, when the Prime Minister of the UK suspended Sittings of the House of Commons. The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that:
“The power to suspend the Parliament is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. The limit on the power to suspend/cancel, is that a decision will be unlawful if the suspension/cancellation, has the effect of frustrating or preventing without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to cany out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for supervising the Executive.”
Madam Presiding Officer, what Tobago is seeing, it is clear - this is disorderly, this is unmannerly, this is disruptive, this is a shame of an Administration that just does not care about law, does not care about order. Look, right in front of our faces, even after being reminded, turn off your phones - wow! Madam Presiding Officer, I do not know how you do it.
What is the usage and practice of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago when the Clerk of the House is absent? Do you know what is the use? The starting point to this could have been discovered if only one simple reading of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago was taken. It says, ‘Clerk’ means, the Clerk of the House, or if the office is vacant, or the Clerk is absent from duty, all that is required is that a person appointed to act as Clerk of the House, is for you to appoint someone to act as the Clerk of the House, and includes any person authorized by the Clerk to perform any of the functions or exercise any of the powers of the Clerk under these Standing Orders”. Simple resolution.
So all you had to do, worse case scenario, was to call the Clerk and get the authorization to... [Interruption] So a sick Clerk cannot talk? She was able to call and say she was ill. So clearly... [Interruption]
Madam Presiding Officer, there is no question that the Assembly had a quorum that was present on March 23rd, 2023, and as such the meeting of the Assembly ought to have proceeded.
Madam Presiding Officer, it is not just me alone saying this and it is not me alone talking about this shambolic kind of occurrence.
One political activist, Anthony James is saying, “The principle of Government is that the Government cannot stop, and if it stops, it means that the Government has failed”. So the question is, - because I know all of Tobago is asking, “Has this Government failed”? Has this Government (because we like to call ourselves The Government of Tobago’) of Tobago in fact, collapsed? If we had to go by what transpired on March 23rd, the Fifteenth Sitting, then it is clear that the Government has in fact, collapsed.He is saying, “Anytime the Government stops, that is an insurrection”. He is even saying, “That is treason”. Not my words! “Anytime the Government” - but you are not hearing the conversation up to now. We have realized that you know when they are found wanting, they run and hide, and you cannot see them; you cannot hear them - they like Facebook. All of a sudden, they are quiet, because up to now, they have not answered on this matter. He said, “You are not even hearing the Chief Secretary. He is the Leader of the pack and he is not saying anything”.
The Deputy Chief Secretary, who he left there because he was not there - and he cannot give account for where he was, because he was not on Assembly Business. This is the man who claimed - he said, “He went to Germany and then he ended up in Jamaica”. The principle of the Jamaica trip was the Honourable Ian Pollard. He was back at work on Monday - Monday preceding. Where was Farley Augustine? He abandoned his post, but he earmarked the Deputy Faith B.Yisrael was the Leader here. We were not hearing any statement... [Interruption]
Madam Presiding Officer, thank you, thank you, thank you. I know the other side is kind of antsy right now. A lot is happening and of course, they want to deflect from the issue which is, that we were told - and I want Tobagonians to understand the gravity of this issue - an entire Sitting was cancelled on the basis that the Clerk was absent when this very House; (not the previous House, also met without a Clerk; but this very House met on more than one occasion - the Fourth Sitting, and we also met when I had to respond to the budget debate. I responded, and the Clerk was ill or was absent, and the budget debate went on. I do not know if they have amnesia. I do not know if they just do not know that they do not know, but they are making a mockery of this honourable House. It is embarrassing for all of Tobago to view because this is happening in the face of not just Tobago, but Trinidad and Tobago and the world. Here it is, every time we get up, we are saying we are men; we want to run our own thing. If they cannot run this House in the way the law prescribes it, how and why should anybody consider giving them more authority? It is embarrassing! This Administration must own up to this embarrassment. It is shameful that we came here to do the business of Tobagonians - Tobagonians elected all of us. In fact, this Administration should not be paid for that month because they failed Tobagonians. This is a clear dereliction of duty. Madam Presiding Officer, do you know what is vexing, what is embarrassing about this? When this was taking place on that day, I advised my Colleague, the Leader of Assembly Business -I told her to let us call the Parliament and get some guidance, and do you know why I said that?
It is because I understand that there is Standing Order 92, and even if we do not know, or even if we are unsure, Standing Order 92 says, “where the Standing Orders of this Assembly is silent, then we simply revert and refer to what passes or what is practised by the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago”. I do not know about them, but I did call the Parliament, and the advice was clear, that a junior member can, in fact, deputize on behalf of the Clerk. That is without question now because we, as a House, would have already resolved that by precedent. We did not even have to ask anybody because without any question, we already practised this very action on multiple times.
I had planned to bring a whole long presentation and tell all of Tobago what the law says and what the law does not say, but the House would have already resolved this issue.
All we require now, is for persons to own - and we need to name and shame and let the persons face the consequences - the persons who would have conspired this great atrocity upon the people of Tobago. It is for this reason, why I felt very challenged to support the resolution that says, the House must in fact, investigate the House. What we are very well asking ourselves to do, is to have the very people who caused this damning, shameful, embarrassing situation, to come now to try to correct itself.
I am a parent, and if I as a parent do something wrong, I do not know how I the parent could ask me to correct me. I do not see the logic in it. I cannot understand it, and as much as the only reason I really want this Motion to go forward hence why I am debating it - to ask the House to correct itself when the House is culpable of disregarding the precedence and disregarding the Standing Orders. The point is, if there are precedence for how one treats with when the Presiding Officer is absent, (who on that day unfortunately was not here as well) the Deputy Presiding Officer steps in. If the Deputy Presiding Officer is absent, then the House elects a Deputy Presiding Officer for the day. The House is saying that under no circumstances must we allow the House not to meet for matters to which the House would consider trivial so we can resolve among ourselves. If that is there, good logic and common sense dictate that if the absence of the Presiding Officer could not stop the business of the Assembly, then the absence of the Clerk of the Assembly cannot either. That is just logical; that is just plain common sense.
Madam Presiding Officer, I rise on Standing Order 45 (4) which reads:
“No member shall impute improper motives to any other Member.”
I stand to raise objection to part of the contribution made by the Minority
Leader - the word he coined, and to ascribe improper motives to this side for an action that would have taken place in this House.
Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. Madam Presiding Officer, here it is, March 24th, same Administration, same Assembly term; the Clerk was absent, and standing dutifully in line and deputizing on behalf of the Clerk, was a junior member of the Assembly Legislature. I have the photo right here, and we have the entire Sitting from the beginning to the end. May I dare say, Madam Presiding Officer, this was in fact, not the only Sitting to which the House went on in the absence of the Clerk. For some reason, this (and I am going to make up a word, ‘amnesic’ Administration forgot their own rules. This Administration that would have conducted a Sitting in the absence of the Clerk, caused a Sitting to collapse.
The reason given was to attempt to bring the Clerk into disrepute, when previously we came here as a House - previously the Clerk was absent, and previously we were able to meet and treat with the business of the people.
Madam Presiding Officer, this flagrant breach must not and should not be allowed to pass as any simple matter. What you have in this instance, is the fact that this current Administration caused the Assembly to in fact, break the law by not meeting in accordance with the Tobago House of Assembly Act that requires us ... [Interruption]
Given the caution, Madam Presiding Officer, which I respectfully accept, the starting point of this Motion, is no doubt that there is a requirement under Section 65 (1) of the THA Act, for the Assembly to hold a meeting at least once every month. The date designated for the meeting in the month of March, was March 23rd, 2023. This would have been the Fifteenth Sitting of the current Assembly.
Madam Presiding Officer, the meeting of the Assembly did not occur in accordance with the legal requirement under Section 65 (1) of the THA Act. The only reason given for the failure by the Assembly to have the meeting on March 23rd, 2023 adjourned, was that the Clerk of the Assembly at the time was ill on that day and could not be physically present in the Assembly.
The Deputy Presiding Officer made an announcement in similar terms to that which appeared in a Newsday article of March 24th, 2023.
The article states:
“Deputy Presiding Officer, Joel Sampson said that the Plenary Sitting had to be cancelled because the Clerk did not arrive for work. He also claimed that the Clerk did not tell him nor the Presiding Officer, that she would be absent from the Sitting. He noted both the law and Standing Orders are silent about what should happen, should the Clerk of the House be absent from a Sitting.”
Madam Presiding Officer, I have here with me, a Sitting in this very honourable House, [photograph shown] dated March 24th, 2022, which was the Fourth Plenary Sitting of this current Assembly Legislature, THA 2021 to 2022... [Interruption]
Madam Presiding Officer, this amended Motion is one respectfully that has some issues where I would like to clarify very early in my contribution...
The recital:
“AND WHEREAS the House was adjourned in violation of the Standing Orders and based on patently erroneous advice that the Clerk’s absence precluded the House from convening;”
It does not fully reflect the intention of this Minority Leader since I do not have any information that can either confirm or deny that the Deputy Presiding Officer, at the time, was patently erroneous and he did receive advice. In fact, in my contribution, I will be asking him the question, whether he received advice from whom did he receive such advice?
Madam Presiding Officer, additionally, the fifth recital:
“BE IT RESOLVED that this House conducts a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances ...”
It is one that I do share some discomfort because in my respectful view, the House cannot investigate itself. Therefore, it is... [Interruption]
Thank you. Madam
Presiding Officer.
Let me also say thank you for approving this Motion that stands in my name, and which reads:
“WHEREAS Section 65 (1) of the Tobago House of Assembly Act, Chapter 25:03 provides that the Assembly shall hold an ordinary meeting at least once every month, or as often as its business may require;
AND WHEREAS on March 23rd, 2023, there was an embarrassing collapse of the 15th Sitting of the Tobago House of Assembly Legislature;
AND WHEREAS the House was adjourned in violation of the Standing Orders and based on patently erroneous advice that the Clerk’s absence precluded the House from convening;
AND WHEREAS this collapse resulted in a flagrant breach of the law, bringing this most august House into public odium and exposure to legal challenge;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House conducts a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances which caused the reprehensible incident which occurred during the 15th Sitting of the Tobago House of Assembly Legislature on March 23rd, 2023;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this investigation be completed no later than June 30th, 2023 and laid in this Assembly at the earliest Sitting thereafter.”
Madam Presiding Officer, before I proceed, I must admit that this
Motion does not totally reflect the intent of the Minority, since this Motion was not the Motion submitted by this Minority. ... [Interruption]