(Trinidad Express) The Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago was the scene of chaos yesterday as Opposition Members took umbrage with House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George over the process regarding the tabling of an impeachment motion for the removal of President Paula-Mae Weekes from office.
The motion, which was brought by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, created contention before it was read at the Extraordinary Sitting of the House of Represen-tatives, as Annisette-George issued guidelines to all members of the House and Senate on Tuesday, indicating that there will be no debate yesterday, and that members are expected to vote on the motion, seeking the establishment of a tribunal to investigate the removal of President Weekes.
In response to the guidelines established by the Speaker, Persad-Bissessar wrote to her indicating that the absence of a debate was an “abuse of power”, a “war on democracy”, and a “coup d’état against the Constitution”.
When St Augustine Member of Parliament (MP) Khadijah Ameen raised the question at the start of yesterday’s proceedings, as to whether there will be a debate of the motion, Annisette-George responded, “The guidelines which have been circulated since Tuesday, are quite clear, and the announcement was intended to give the clarification which you seek.”
She then called on Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar to lay the motion.
Persad-Bissessar open-ed by highlighting that the guidelines for the motion were unilaterally formulated by Annisette-George.
“These guideline have seem to have forgotten the origin of the word Parlia-ment,” Persad-Bissessar said, before she was interrupted by the Speaker, who had muted her microphone since she refused to acknowledge that Annisette-George was on her feet.
After her microphone was turned back on, the Opposition Leader said: “Before I read the motion I want to say these guidelines are illegal, and null and void. The Opposition participate in these proceedings under protest, I want to make that very clear.”
Persad-Bissessar then proceeded to read the motion before stating that Weekes should be removed from office since she:
a. Wilfully violated the provisions of the Consti-tution, securing the independence of the Police Service Commission in the performance of its functions, and also wilfully violating Section 123 of the Constitution.
b. Behaved in such a way as to bring her office into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, and/or facilitating interference with the Police Service Commis-sion. And also by proceeding in the circumstances to appoint new members of this Police Service Commission.
c. Behaved in a way that has resulted in the endangerment of the security of the State through inactions and failure, and/or neglect to act, and,
d. Has otherwise failed and or neglected to execute her duties under the Constitution.
“Be it now resolved that pursuant to Section 36 of the Constitution, a tribunal be established to investigate the removal of Her Excellency Paula-Mae Weekes, ORTT, from the Office of the President”
Persad-Bissessar was in the process of closing her motion when she was interrupted by the Speaker, which prompted several members of the Opposition to voice their displeasure.
Annisette-George took the opportunity to remind them that they were in the House of Representatives and as such, when she’s on her feet, they are to remain silent. But she herself was not allowed to continue as Princes Town MP Barry Padarath shouted, “Madam, the people voted for us, who voted for you?”
Ignoring all the cross talk, the Speaker tried moving ahead with proceedings by stating that the motion having been read…but she was interrupted once more with claims that Persad-Bissessar had not finished reading the motion.
However, continuing to ignore the now vociferous protest from several Opposition Members, she stated: “Honourable members, Section 36 (1) (b) of the Constitution states, ‘the motion states with full particulars the grounds on which his removal from office is proposed, and is signed by not less than one-third of the membership of the House of Representatives. There-fore, in order to move to the next stage, this motion requires…”
At that point St Augustine MP Khadijah Ameen interjected, starting a heated debate with the Speaker.
Ameen: “Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not completed the reading of her motion.”
Annisette-George: “Therefore, in order to move to the next stage…”
Ameen: “Madam Speaker, in order to move to the next stage the Leader of the Opposition must complete reading her motion.”
Annisette-George: “Member for St Augustine, I will not continue to tolerate this. We are moving on to the next stage.”
Ameen: “Madam Speaker, I don’t want to continue to tolerate the Leader not being allowed… There is a procedure that includes the Member reading the motion. The reading of the motion…and whoever cutting off the mike, preventing the voices of elected members from being…
“Madam Speaker, the procedure requires the Leader of Opposition, the Member who brought the motion, to read the motion before the next stage is taken. The Leader of Opposition clearly has not completed the reading of her motion. And in order for the voice of the people to be heard, the Leader must complete the reading of her motion. For anything otherwise to happen, it is a suppression of democracy and a prevention of the voice of the people from being heard.”
Annisette-George: “Honourable Members, in accordance with the guidelines, which have been established, we shall proceed.”
Ameen: “Madam Speaker, your own guidelines indicate that in the procedure the Member shall read the motion and then we go to the next stage. The Leader of Opposition has not completed the reading of the motion, so I’m asking you to allow the motion to be read in accordance with your own guidelines, before we proceed further.
Annisette-George: “The motion having been read as…”
During that back and forth between Annisette-George and Ameen, several other Opposition MPs could be heard condemning the Speaker for her stance.
And following closely on the heels of Ameen, was Couva North MP Ravi Ratiram.
“Madam Speaker, I raised that issue with you earlier which you did not address. I pointed you to May’s Parliamentary Practice which provide guidelines for substantive motions, and I want to refer you to page 396. Your guidelines is not in harmony with what is provided here with respect to substantive motions, and I’m asking you, can you kindly respond if it is we are still guided by these parliamentary practice, or, you unilaterally will decide how this…”
Annisette-George: “Member for Couva North, my guidelines are in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral College Regulations.”
Ratiram: “But it’s illegal.”
The Speaker then tells Ratiram that she’s not taking conversations from him while he’s sitting, and proceeds once more, saying, “Therefore, in order to move to the next stage, this motion requires not less than one-third of the full membership of the House of Representatives. The clerk will now call the names of the members who signed the motion.”
When Persad-Bissessar’s name was called she responded with, “Madam, I say no to the process.”
This was followed by each Opposition Member voicing support for the motion but in disagreement with the process taken, especially the no debate guideline, when their name was called.
In responding, Ameen said she stood firm with her view of it being a suppression of democracy.
“I want the opportunity to debate and be the voice of the people who elected me.”
Couva South MP Rudy Indarsingh added his voice to the endless chatter, asking for some degree of decency.
“Madam Speaker could we have some decency in terms of how this process is being conducted this morning. Madam Speaker, this House has been hijacked,” he said.
Several other attempts to stop the Speaker from moving forward were either ignored or shut down.
“Therefore, the Constitution states that the Electoral College at the summons of the Speaker, will consider the report of the tribunal and by resolution supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership, declare that the President shall be removed from office.
“Therefore Honourable Members, in accordance with Section 36 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago , this motion proposed in the House of representatives, requires a vote of the two-thirds membership of the Electoral College. Accordingly, I will summon the Electoral College for this purpose,” Annisette-George said.
The motion was later defeated, as 24 Members voted in favour while 47 voted against.