Ex-presiding officer on THA special sitting: Members cannot do as they please

FORMER Tobago House of Assembly (THA) presiding officer Dr Denise Tsoiafatt Angus says last Wednesday’s special sitting of the House, in which Chief Secretary Farley Augustine made serious allegations of high-ranking government and police officials, was “flawed in its execution.”

Tsoiafatt Angus added that if the content of videos played during the sitting pointed to a criminal act of obstruction of justice, the chief secretary, the presiding officer and the leader of assembly business might be charged as co-conspirators.

She also said while she supported calls, in some quarters, for mediation between Dr Rowley and Augustine, “there have to be distinct lines of mediating relationships to maintain the operations of the assembly versus alleged criminal acts that are being investigated at various levels.”

Tsoiafatt Angus was referring to the investigation being carried out by the police and Integrity Commission about the controversial leaked audio clip in which two THA officials discussed using state resources to hire people for a social media propaganda campaign.

Like Minority Leader Kelvon Morris, Tsoiafatt Angus noted presiding officer Abby Taylor approved a breach of standing order 45(8) of the House in allowing Augustine to play the audio clips of conversations between him and a “whistleblower,” in which allegations were made against the high-ranking officials.

It states that the “conduct of the President of the Republic, members of the Assembly, members of Parliament or of judges or other persons engaged in the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion moved for the purpose and in any moved amendment or debate on a motion dealing with any other subject matter, any reference to the conduct of any such person as aforesaid shall be out of order.”

Tsoiafatt Angus, who served as presiding officer from 2017-2019, said when a member requests to make a statement in the House, the presiding officer, with support from the legislative staff, must review it to ensure it is in keeping with the standing orders before it is approved.

“Once approved, the statement must be read verbatim, the approved statement by the Presiding officer,” she told Newsday.

Tsoiafatt Angus, political leader of the Innovative Democratic Alliance, said after discussing with her staff, Taylor should have advised the chief secretary that the special meeting should have been in the form of a motion with a debate.

She also noted that members of Parliament, under the Westminster system, do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.

Tsoiafatt Angus added this lack of criminal immunity is derived from the key tenet of the British Constitution that all are equal before the law.

“If a member of Parliament admits to a criminal act in the House, they can be charged for that act outside of the House.”

She alluded to India’s Lok Sabha Secretariat to demonstrate her point. The Lok Sabha, regarded constitutionally as the House of the People, is the lower house of India’s bicameral Parliament.

It states that “parliamentary privilege does not allow unequivocal latitude for members to do as they please.”

Rather the secretariat said, it is “available to individual members only in so far as they are necessary for the House to perform its functions freely without any let or hindrance.”

It added, “They do not exempt the members from the obligations to the society which apply to other citizens. Privileges of Parliament do not place an MP on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of the application of laws unless there are good and sufficient reasons in the interest of Parliament itself to do so."

Accordingly, Tsoiafatt Angus said, “There is no limitless parliamentary privilege offered to members' especially where criminal allegations may be present, and therefore the seriousness of the situation in the last sitting of the THA is, therefore, not the admissibility of the videos to the House, but whether the content of the videos point to a criminal act of obstruction of justice given that this is an ongoing investigation of the Chief Secretary and his executive by the TTPS.”

She said if the investigation determines a case for obstruction of justice, then associated members of the House can be charged in that regard.

“This most likely could include the Chief Secretary, presiding officer and Leader of Assembly Business as co-conspirators.”

Tsoiafatt Angus said according to standing order 89 (2), “A person, not being a member, who has been referred to in the House by name or in such a way as to be readily identifiable, may make a submission to the Presiding Officer in writing…”

She claimed the man, who was recorded without his knowledge and written consent and the video presented in the House has grounds to sue the THA Legislature on the matter.

On Friday, Morris claimed the statement which was approved and circulated to members and the statement which was read were “contradictory in content.”

This, he said, constituted a violation of standing order 29.1.

Dr Rowley, at a news conference on Thursday, said he knew of no provision in the THA Act that allows the presiding officer to “approve, even at her own discretion, that the Chief Secretary could go and suborn testimony from a person or persons unknown.”