(Trinidad Express) House Speaker Wade Mark yesterday afternoon apologised for his statement last Friday during a motion of censure against Finance Minister Larry Howai, filed by political leader of the Independent Liberal Party, Jack Warner.
Wade said he never meant to mislead the House, and had sent an apology letter to Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
The censure motion failed last Friday and Warner packed up and walked out of the Parliament chamber, after Mark told the Parliament “I received only a few hours ago, a notice from the High Court of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, dated January 16, 2015, a matter involving Larry Howai and Azad Ali of the Sunshine Publishing Company Limited”.
After it became known that it was Howai and not the High Court who had handed him the High Court document, there was widespread criticism and calls for Mark to step down.
However, when Parliament convened yesterday, Mark sought to bring an end to the matter.
He said””Honourable Members, I sincerely regret the embarrassment to the Judiciary as my statement would have incorrectly conveyed the impression that the Judiciary had on its own volition notified me of a matter before it. On the 26th of January 2015, I wrote to the Honourable the Chief Justice expressing my regret and assuring him of the mutual respect and comity which exists between the Parliament and the Judiciary and to which this House is resolutely committed. The Honourable the Chief Justice on 27th January, 2015 acknowledged receipt of my letter”
Wade added: “I also sincerely regret that through my error, it may have appeared that I wilfully misled this honourable House and for that I am most respectfully apologise. I wish to assure all honourable members that I never intended to misled this honourable house. I wish in closing to ask honourable members that after I had drawn to the attention of the house the existence of the said legal proceedings, in exercise of my discretion and the presiding officer, I permitted the motion to commence. I did not deny or shut down debate on the motion. It was the mover of the motion who of his own volition, decided not to proceed”.
