The purpose of Backer’s motion was to have Dr Singh questioned through counsel or directly on the issue before the Privileges Committee, since it was the finance minister who had moved to have her held in contempt of the House because of statements she allegedly made about ranks of the joint services travelling to Trinidad and Tobago to commit acts of torture.
After an intense debate on the matter during yesterday’s sitting, a division of the House was called. When the motion was put to vote 30 government members vetoed the motion, while 26 members from the opposition benches supported it.
Backer, when presenting on the motion, argued that she should be allowed to cross-examine Singh based on the tenets of natural justice, which permit an accused to question her or her accuser. She also said that Singh in moving the initial motion to have her disciplined had contended that she had made certain statements, which were clearly contradicted by what was recorded in the Hansard.
Further, Backer noted that while it was Prime Minister Samuel Hinds who had written to the Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran concerning government’s intention to move the motion against her, it was in fact Singh, in Hinds’ absence, who moved the motion on the day in question. Backer also explained to the House that she moved this particular motion since she was told that for Singh to appear before the Committee of Privileges, a motion would have to be first brought before the National Assembly.
AFC Leader Raphael Trotman supported Backer’s motion and urged that since there was no precedence in the local Parliament’s history, a ruling should be made in favour of the accused. He further said that Backer had several rights as a citizen that were enshrined in Article 144 of the Constitution which permitted her to question the finance minister since he had made charges against her.
Trotman pointed out that if the House were to permit Singh to be questioned, the Committee of Privileges could outline the parameters of the questions that could be asked.
Meanwhile, Trotman also noted that while it was Hinds who had written to the Speaker concerning the motion to have Backer subjected to disciplinary proceedings, it was Singh who had in fact moved the motion. According to him, this occurrence may have been a procedural lapse.
Government members Bernard De Santos, Anil Nandlall and Gail Teixeira spoke on the motion and argued that Backer did not have an automatic right to question the person who had brought the charges against her.
De Santos stated that the very fact that the motion needed the National Assembly to rule on it indicated that was not an automatic right but rather an exercise of discretion. He further argued that in normal proceedings under the rules of natural justice, an accused is allowed to question his/her accuser, but this particular matter was “far from normal”.
In his address Nandlall, said that Singh brought the motion against Backer since he was the most senior government functionary in the House at the time the matter came up for attention. Further, Nandlall also argued that the Members of Parliament should be responsible in their conduct in the House and that they should be held accountable when they fall short in this regard.
Teixeira, meanwhile, urged Backer to apologise for her statements. She contended that Backer’s motion was an attempt to subterfuge the Parliamentary Privileges Committee so that she could have the matter heard in public. She also said that it was an attempt to undermine the integrity of the concept of having a jury of one’s peers, which was what the Privileges Committee represented.
PNCR-1G MP Winston Murray argued that there was nothing to lose in ruling in favour of Backer’s motion. He said that rather the National Assembly stood to enhance its image in the eyes of the public since it would appear as if it would go overboard to achieve justice.
On October 22, 2009 Singh moved a motion during the sitting of the National Assembly to have Backer appear before the Committee of Privileges in keeping with Standing Order No.32. After the motion was moved, the Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had been made out against Backer and referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges, which addresses disciplinary action against members of the House.
Singh had objected to statements made by Backer during a previous sitting when she was speaking about the joint services ranks who were travelling to the neighbouring country to boost security operations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference.
