Law Association concerned about attacks on independent senators

THE Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago said it is deeply concerned about what appear to be unwarranted attacks on the independence and integrity of the independent bench in the Senate.

In a release on July 6, the association said the attacks happened during and after the recent Parliamentary debate on the bill to amend provisions governing qualification for a Prime Minister’s pension and were directed at members of the independent bench who did not support the bill.

“As regards the bill to amend the provisions governing qualification for a Prime Minister’s pension, while some Independent Senators did not support the bill, others did, and accordingly, the bill was passed. It is not clear what rational basis there is for suggesting that the Independent Senators who supported the bill were independent and free of opposition influence, but that those who did not support the bill were not.”

It said the contributions of the independent bench in the Senate – particularly when a special majority is required, for instance where the proposed legislation impacts the fundamental rights of citizens – is critical, because the positions of members of the major political parties sitting on opposite sides of the aisle can be fractious, contentious and partisan.

The Law Association said members of the independent bench on the Senate are selected by the President to represent various interest groups.

“They are not nominated by the leaders of the respective political parties. The purpose of this constitutional arrangement is to afford the Parliament the benefit of views and perspectives which may not align with, or be shared by, those members who have a political affiliation.

“We live in a democratic society in which we are likely to encounter differences of views and perspectives on almost every topic. The health of our democracy can be gauged by the manner in which such differences are navigated. Our democracy needs strong and independent thinkers.”

It said that sadly, particularly where public institutions and public figures are concerned, their independence and integrity are often called into question whenever they hold or express views or perspectives which differ from those of politicians.

“This is a trend which must be reined in. It is not in our nation’s interest, for the citizenry, many of whom are likely to have some political affiliation, to be encouraged to believe that every time views and perspectives are expressed which differ from their own, the persons expressing them are unprincipled or are lacking in independence and integrity.”

In response, the UNC said the Law Association’s release was anti-democratic. In a release from PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo, who made the initial allegations against the independent Senators, the UNC said it was unsure as to why the Law Association inserted itself in this Parliamentary matter.

“Is it defending one of its members, attorney-at-law Anthony Vieira? Does it believe that he represents the association in the Senate? Or is this a general intervention? Is this a statement of the Law Association executive on behalf of the general membership?”

It said the term independent does not appear in TT’s Constitution, which says nine (Senators) shall be appointed by the President in his discretion from outstanding persons from economic or social or community organisations and other major fields of endeavour, in Section 40(2)(c).

The release also said “these Senators have been appointed by the most politically-aligned President in the history of our Republic. Citizens have a right to be sceptical of their actual independence, keep an eye out, and raise questions.

“The Law Association is also mistaken when it claims that ‘Members of the independent (sic) bench in the Senate are selected by the President to represent various interest groups.’ This is an even more serious misrepresentation and misunderstanding. It is clear from Section 40(2)(c) that these Senators are not representatives of interest groups. Why would the Law Association say otherwise?”

The UNC said it was unsure what alleged attacks the Law Association is referring to. It said it was concerned about entrenched members of the establishment, including the Law Association and sections of the media, characterising analysis and criticism of the President's Senators as "unwarranted attacks on ... [their] independence and integrity.

“It is deeply undemocratic to attempt to stifle legitimate and lawful criticism of lawmakers. All Parliamentarians, including the President's appointed Senators, are duly subject to analysis and criticism. They are public servants, paid by taxpayers, conducting public business.

“If the population is legitimately upset at unelected law-makers for blocking bills that they passionately want to be made law, then they are rightfully entitled to freely express their political disagreement. The UNC supports that democratic freedom.”

The party said it found it notable and deeply concerning that the Law Association did not “acknowledge or comment on Senator Vieira’s serious conflicts of interest which gravely compromise his presumed independence as a so-called ‘independent’ Senator.

“Noting these conflicts of interest is not an 'attack'. We have a democratic right and responsibility to do so. In addition to these conflicts, Senator Vieira recklessly and irresponsibly compromised the perception of the impartiality of the Court of Appeal. The Law Association did not make a statement about that.

“Finally, in response to criticism of him, Senator Vieira threatened criminal action against the UNC's PRO in order to silence or punish him. Criticising the President's Senators is not a crime, and this threat was meant to intimidate. The Law Association was also silent about that.”

The UNC said the Law Association should be careful to not attempt to stifle democratic criticism, misrepresent the constitution, and portray a thinly-veiled defence of the reputation of one of its publicly disgraced members as "deep concern" about "parliamentary law-making".