House Speaker Wade Mark yesterday came under further criticism after he admitted he made a mistake in the statements he made in last Friday’s Parliament session on Independent Liberal Party MP Jack Warner’s motion of censure against Finance Minister Larry Howai.
Moments after Mark so to correct the error, he was severely criticised by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley and Martin Daly, SC, who both called on him to produce the letter that he acted on when he made his initial judgement last Friday, and the Independent Liberal Party, who wants him to step down.
Warner’s no-confidence motion against Howai collapsed after Warner was cautioned by Mark about heading in the wrong direction and the full requirements for the motion were not completed after Warner walked out of the Parliament that day.
Before starting debate, Mark had told the Parliament it was not his intention to muzzle freedom of speech.
He noted, however, that he had received Warner’s motion on December 30, 2014 and approved it on January 5, 2015, and said he had only received “a few hours ago” (that day) notice from the High Court, dated January 16, 2015, on a matter concerning Howai and Azard Ali of Sunshine Publishing Company Ltd.
Mark had noted Parliament’s sub-judice rule but had allowed Warner to proceed on the approved content of the motion concerning a Carlton Savannah issue.
Warner was later cautioned when he strayed from the approved content to another matter concerning a Cemex matter. Warner packed up and walked out after that.
The Speaker’s remark about the “High Court notice” was subsequently spotlighted when Daly issued a press release taking issue with the perceived “mixing of politics in judicial affairs.”
Rowley: He has questions to answer
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley wants House Speaker Wade Mark to show him the letter which effectively ended a motion of censure by Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner against Finance Minister Larry Howai.
Speaking at a press conference at his Charles Street, Port-of-Spain, office yesterday, Rowley said an admittance of error by Mark was not enough.
“The Speaker now has questions to answer. And based on the answer, my first reaction is: There may be here a question of privilege. I have been in the Parliament since 1987 January and I have never seen anything like this.
“A communication from the High Court to the Parliament, in the circumstances as prevailed last Friday, would have serious consequences with respect to the separation of powers in T&T.”
Rowley said he was also concerned about members’ privilege arising out of the matter and wanted to see for himself what inspired the Speaker’s actions.
“This morning, I have written to the Speaker asking him to assist the members of the Opposition, and the Parliament as a whole, and the country as a whole, by providing us with a copy of the notice that he received from the High Court,” he added.
“So I am here once again, calling on the Prime Minister to remove the Attorney General from office in protection of the interests of the people of T&T. And I am calling on the Director of Public Prosecution to immediately open a criminal investigation into the allegations made by Mr David West as they are contained in an affidavit in a lawsuit before the court.”
The AG has denied the allegations and says he is ready to defend himself in court.
ILP: He must go
The Independent Liberal Party (ILP) yesterday called on House Speaker Wade Mark to resign, saying his “ex-post facto ‘admission of error’ following the Judiciary's public advice is unsatisfactory.”
In the statement yesterday, the ILP said Mark’s statement didn’t “undo the damage caused to our democracy and the institution of the Parliament. The only thing achieved is the removal of the unjustified scandal from over the head of the Judiciary and for it to be placed where it rightfully belongs, over the head of the Speaker.”
The ILP said after reviewing the circumstances and comments made by Mark during the motion, it no longer had any confidence in him continuing in the chair.
“We therefore hereby call upon Mark to do the honourable thing and resign, as his continued presence in the chair would only further undermine confidence in the impartiality of the Office of the Speaker and bring the office into further odium and disrepute.
“It is unacceptable and cannot be sanctioned that in such a critical matter as the censure of a minister, that a Speaker could make such a mistake as to misquote the source of a communication, especially where that Speaker would have repeated twice that the source of his notification was the High Court, a powerful and independent institution. It also raises the question of in what other areas has the Speaker erred.”
What Judiciary said
Yesterday, the Judiciary, noting the media reports on the matter, distanced itself from the issue, saying:
“While there appears to be some misunderstanding which we expect the Honourable Speaker to clarify, the Judiciary can confirm that no notice, letter or any other communication on the matter was forwarded by the court or any of its officers to the Speaker or any officers of the Parliament.”
Around the same time Mark issued a statement saying he was notified by a letter from claimant Finance Minister Larry Howai, and not the Judiciary, of certain High Court proceedings started on January 16 against Azard Ali, which brought into “urgent consideration a novel application of the sub-judice rule in last Friday’s motion by ILP MP Jack Warner.”
Clarifying the matter and apologising to the Judiciary, Mark’s statement said:
“The Speaker of the House wishes to clarify the statement which was made by him before debate in the House on Friday January 23, 2015, which conveyed the impression the High Court of T&T had sent him a notice dated 16 January, 2015, of a matter before it.
“The Speaker of the House was by letter, dated January 22, 2015, notified by the claimant of certain legal proceedings commenced by the claimant in the High Court on January 16, 2015, which brought into urgent consideration a novel application of the sub-judice rule in the debate on the motion before the House.
“It was in these unprecedented circumstances that the statement was made inadvertently.”
Mark added: “The Speaker of the House deeply regrets any embarrassment which may have been caused to the Judiciary, particularly having regard to the comity and mutual respect which exists between the Parliament and the Judiciary, and will write to the Honourable Chief Justice conveying his regrets.”
Mark said he proposed to correct the record during the next Parliament sitting.
Daly: Release Letter
In another press release soon after Mark’s statement, Daly said: “With considerable regret I am bound to say I consider the contents of the Speaker’s statement dated today, January 26, 2015, intended to clarify the basis of his actions in the House of Representatives on January 23, 2015, reflective of a breach of nearly every fundamental tenet of fair play.
“It is difficult to understand how a letter from the claimant in the lawsuit and the person who was the subject matter of the motion could possibly be mistaken as a communication from the High Court and to be described as such. It was manifestly from the claimant/the person who was the subject matter of the motion.
He added: “The Speaker acted exclusively on the representation of an interested party. The Speaker acted with secrecy in the sense that the real basis of his action was never disclosed to the House of Representatives.
“This irregularity is compounded by the fact that he was acting secretly on the basis of a letter from an interested party.
“How can anyone accept that the letter raised ‘a novel application of the sub-judice rule’ without the Speaker disclosing what was said to be the novel application (even if he did not disclose the letter) and thereby give the members of the House an opportunity to be heard on whether the point was novel or should form the basis of enforcement of the sub-judice rule. “
Daly said while the Speaker promptly disclosed the basis on which he acted to the House of Representatives and had apologised to the Judiciary, which he commended Mark for, the House Speaker should also release the letter he acted on for public scrutiny in the interest of fairness.