[UPDATED] Penny unmoved by privileges motion: I will not be muzzled

Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles said “she will not be muzzled” after she was referred to the Privileges Committee of the Parliament following her response to the 2025-2026 national budget on October 17.

She spoke to media at the Red House Rotunda during the break following her presentation and the reading of the ruling by Deputy Speaker Dr Aiyna Ali.

“As far as I’m concerned, that is just a distraction from my budget presentation and I will not be muzzled. Today was the day the Opposition Leader presents her response. That’s not going to distract from the fact that the population, I mean it was carried live, so if that’s the intention, as I said I would not be muzzled.”

Ali said on October 13, she received a matter of privilege from Couva South MP Barry Padarath in accordance with Standing Order 32 (2).

She said Padarath raised the matter of privilege after the Opposition staged a parliamentary walkout, followed by a statement by the Leader of the Opposition. The statement, she said, accused the presiding officer of being biased and showing a pattern of unfair treatment and rulings which had gone unchecked.

It said he had consistently rejected the majority of urgent questions and Prime Minister’s questions filed by the opposition. It said his refusal to maintain established precedent on supplemental questions is a direct challenge to accountability and transparency in the conduct of the people’s business.

Ali said Padarath said he raised the matter of privilege based on the submission that the Arima MP attempted to “bring into disrepute the independent democratic work of the House of Representatives in the eyes of the public for political gain by questioning the independence of the presiding officer.”

She said he submitted that this was an act of “constructive contempt against the House of Representatives, breaching the privilege of the House as the member’s actions seek to obstruct and tarnish the democratic as well as independent management, presiding on rulings of the presiding officer.”

Ali said since she received the matter on October 13, she had done significant research and was prepared to rule on the matter.

“The House of Representatives and the Parliament as an institution represent the foundation of democracy. Democracy, no matter what side of the aisle we stand, must always be preserved. Preserving democracy means protecting the independence of our Parliament in the public eyes, as well as the operations of its duties. It has always been a precedent of our Republic and past parliaments to never bring the presiding officer into the realm of political attacks and aspersions based on the foundation of protecting the dignity of our parliamentary institutions.

“In deciding whether a prima facie case of contempt has been made out, the chair must carefully consider the facts alleged and all the information placed before her. I have done that just that and find that a prima facie case of contempt has been made up. I so rule and refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges for consideration and report.”

Ali would have replaced Speaker Jagdeo Singh partway through the Opposition Leader’s budget response. During her reading of the ruling, it was noted that the Clerk of the House was trying to get her attention.

Under the House of Representatives (Powers and Privileges) Act Chapter 2:02, Section 3, no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member for words, spoken before, or written in a report to, the House or to a committee or by reason of any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise.

Section 25 of the June 2015 Standing Orders of the House of Representatives said no notice has to be given of a motion relating to a matter of privilege.

Section 92 said the Committee of Privileges shall have the duty of considering and reporting on any matter referred to it by the Speaker or the House, in accordance with Standing Order 32 (Privilege Matters) and Standing Order 55 (Order in the House and in Committee). It shall be the duty of the committee to consider any matter so referred and to report thereon to the House.

It said the Speaker shall be a member and the chairman of the Committee of Privileges. It said the Committee of Privileges shall consist of six members inclusive of the chairman.

The current members of the privileges committee, according to the Parliament website, are chairman Jagdeo Singh, Couva South MP Barry Padarath, Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein, Aranguez/St Joseph MP Devesh Maharaj, Port of Spain South MP Keith Scotland and Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West MP Stuart Young.

Former Speaker Nizam Mohammed said allegations of bias against a speaker are a very common utterance in any Commonwealth Parliament given the system under which we operate.

“However, this complaint by government, and its request for a referral, or rather this referral back to the Deputy Speaker on the matter, is a very novel situation, and that there has been a referral, it is left to be seen as to how the privileges committee will deal with this matter.

“The cut and thrust during Parliamentary debates can become very tense, and sometimes unruly. However, the fundamental objective of the opposition to insist on accountability by any government must be facilitated during deliberation.

"Since there has been a referral, it is only the privileges committee that will be in the best position to make an impartial decision, having been seized of all the facts and circumstances."

Asked whether he thought the Speaker should recuse himself as chairman of the committee, given that the complaint involved him, Mohammed said, “If the specific complaint is against the Speaker, it will be most prudent for the Deputy Speaker to preside over the deliberations of the committee, since the principle of 'one cannot be a judge in his own case.'”

Based on the interim report of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Representatives Fourth Session (2018/2019), Padarath may also have to recuse himself as he brought the matter to the Deputy Speaker.

In both 2019 and 2023, the then opposition proposed bringing motions of no-confidence against Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George, accusing her of bias. Multiple accusations of bias were made during sittings of the House.

Section 32 of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives states that:

32. PRIVILEGE MATTERS

(1) A matter directly concerning the privileges of the House shall take precedence over all other business.

(2) Any Member desiring to raise a matter under this Standing Order shall first obtain leave of the Speaker who will determine whether the Member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege.

(3) If permission is given by the Speaker under paragraph (2) of this Standing Order, the Member so permitted may raise it any time after Questions and request that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

(4) No debate shall ensue on a matter raised under this Standing Order but if the Speaker decides that a prima facie case has been made out he shall so state and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

(5) If during a sitting of the House a matter suddenly arises which appears to involve the Privileges of the House and which calls for the immediate intervention of the House, the proceedings may be interrupted, except during the progress of a division, by a motion based on such matter.

(6) No Member moving a matter under this Standing Order may speak for more than five minutes.

This story was originally published with the title "Penny referred to Privileges Committee for saying Speaker biased" and has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

Deputy Speaker Dr Aiyna Ali has referred the Opposition Leader to the Committee of Privileges based on a matter of privilege raised by Couva South MP Barry Padarath, following the opposition’s walkout on October 10 and subsequent media release regarding the behaviour of Speaker Jagdeo Singh.

Ali made the announcement on October 17 at the House of Representatives following the Opposition Leader’s contribution to the debate.

She said Padarath’s matter said the release under the banner of the Opposition Leader attempted to bring the independence of the House of Representatives into disrepute and formed an act of constructive contempt.

Ali said after receiving the matter, she did considerable research and found that a prima-facie case of contempt had been made out. She referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Beckles had complained that urgent questions and Prime Minister's Questions filed by the Opposition were rejected by the Speaker; he had failed to maintain established precedent of supplemental questions; and there was uneven and biased application of standing orders which favoured the government.