Despite protests outside Parliament and several calls for his resignation, House Speaker Wade Mark did not step down when he rose to speak in the Lower House on January 30.
Following is the full text of the Mark's statement, in which he speaks about his response to the Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner's no-confidence motion against Minister of Finance and the Economy Larry Howai on December 30, 2014.
Some highlights:
• Says his misleading of the Lower House was unintentional
• Says the transcript will show that he did not shut down debate on December 30, 2014
1. Hon. Members, I received a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Finance and the Economy from the Honourable Member for Chaguanas West on 30th December, 2014, and I approved the same on 5th January, 2015. The motion qualified for debate on 12th January 2015. By agreement it came up for debate on Friday 23rd January, 2015, Private Member’s day.
2. The motion, by its recitals, raised the issue of the conduct of the Minister of Finance and the Economy in his former capacity as Chief Executive Officer of First Citizen’s Bank (FCB) during the period 2006 to 2009 at a time when the First Citizen’s Bank granted a loan to Carlton Savannah Limited (now in receivership) for the construction of a hotel.
3. Honourable Members, on 22nd January, 2015, I received a letter, with enclosures, dated 22nd January, 2015, from the Minister of Finance and the Economy (which I have caused to be circulated to Members) which stated as follows:
“Dear Mr. Speaker,
“I enclose a copy of Legal Documents served on the Sunshine Newspapers regarding allegations made, with respect to a loan granted to Carlton Savannah Limited, for your information.
“Yours faithfully,
Larry Howai
Minister of Finance and the Economy”
4. The letter contained the following enclosures:
(1) a letter dated 20th January, 2015, from Messrs. Lydia Mendonca & Co., Attorneys at Law, to the Minister of Finance and the Economy (stamped as having been received by the Minister of Finance and the Economy on 21st January, 2015), captioned CV2015-00159- Larry Howai -vs- Azad Ali and Sunshine Publishing Company Limited, advising the Minister (a) that on 16th January, 2015 they had filed proceedings in the High Court on his behalf commencing action against Azad Ali and Sunshine Publishing Company Limited claiming, inter alia, damages for libel and injunctive relief, and (b) that the Claim Form and Statement of Case were served on the Defendants on 19th January, 2015;
(2) copies of the returns of personal service on the Defendants; and
(3) a copy of the Claim Form and Statement of Case, both dated 16th January, 2015 and both bearing the official stamp of the High Court dated 16th January, 2015.
5. Hon. Members, a perusal of the Claim Form and Statement of Case revealed that both the legal proceedings and the motion before the House concerned the conduct of the Minister of Finance and the Economy in his former capacity as CEO of FCB at the time that FCB granted a loan to Carlton Savannah Limited.
6. Accordingly, Honourable Members, having received notification of these legal proceedings, it became apparent to me that consideration would have to be given to the application of the sub judice rule when the motion came up for debate.
7. Honourable Members will recognize that the sub judice rule is a discretionary restraint imposed by the House itself on the absolute privilege of freedom of speech of its Members. This is because of the need for comity between the Judiciary and the Legislature, and the Legislature’s commitment to not adversely affect legal proceedings or to be seen to be determining disputes when that is the sole preserve of the Judiciary. Honourable Members neither the Standing Orders of the House of Representative nor parliamentary practice limits the application of the sub judice rule to criminal proceedings only. The rule is to be applied on a case by case basis, considering the nature of the debate before the House, the nature of the related legal proceedings and the relevant Standing Order.
8. As a consequence Honourable Members, I felt it necessary that before debate on the motion began, I should bring to the attention of the mover of the motion and of the House that legal proceedings related to the subject matter of the motion had commenced in the High Court and that a consideration of the sub judice rule arose as a consequence.
9. I indicated that I had received only a few hours before the start of that sitting a notice from the High Court of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago dated 16th January, 2015, concerning a matter involving Larry Howai and Azad Ali of the Sunshine Publishing Company Limited. That was clearly incorrect and I assure this Honourable House that that error was through inadvertence only. It was my intention to say that I had received notification of a matter involving Larry Howai and Azad Ali which had been filed on 16th January, 2015, the date of the official stamp of the High Court on both the Claim Form and Statement of Case.
10. 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.
11. I also sincerely regret that through my error it may have appeared that I wilfully misled this Honourable House and for that I most respectfully apologise. I assure all honorable Members that I never intended to mislead this House.
12. I wish in closing to ask Honourable Members to note that after I brought to the attention of the House the existence of the said legal proceedings, in exercise of my discretion as the Presiding Officer, I permitted debate on 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, after he commenced his contribution, decided not to proceed. The transcript of the proceedings of that sitting is evidence of what transpired.
13. I thank you for your indulgence, Honourable Members.
Source: T&T Parliament