House Speaker Wade Mark has said the error he made in last Friday’s motion by Jack Warner was made through inadvertence only but stressed Warner was the one who chose not to proceed with debate on his own motion. Mark made the points in a statement to Parliament yesterday explaining the error he made in statements he delivered at the start of last Friday’s debate on Warner’s motion.
The motion 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 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. Mark explained a mix up had occurred with legal documents sent to him by Howai. He added he never meant to mislead the House and assured the error would not be repeated.
After Mark completed his statement yesterday Warner packed up his belongings and walked out of Parliament again in protest. He said the Speaker should recuse himself on the censure motion and also had a no-confidence motion against Mark. Mark said he had received Warner’s motion on December 30, 2014 and approved it on January 5, 2015. It qualified for debate on January 12, 2015 and arose for debate on January 23.
Mark said he received for his information a letter from Howai on January 22 which enclosed copies of legal documents served on the Sunshine newspaper regarding allegations made, concerning a loan granted to Carlton Savannah Limited. Copies of the documents were distributed to all MPs.
Mark said: “A perusal of the claim form and statement of case revealed both the legal proceedings and the motion before the House concerned the conduct of the Minister of Finance in his former capacity as CEO of FCB at the time that FCB granted a loan to Carlton Savannah Limited.
“Accordingly, 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. “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. “Neither the Standing Orders of the House of Representative nor parliamentary practice limit 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.”
Mark added: “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.
“I indicated 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 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. Mark added: “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.”
Mark said he wrote the Chief Justice on January 26 expressing his regret and assuring him of the mutual respect and comity which exists between the Parliament and the Judiciary. He said the Chief Justice acknowledged receipt on January 27. He added: “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 honourable members that I never intended to mislead this House.”
He added: “ I wish 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 didn’t 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.”