Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley says House Speaker Wade Mark must resign because he deliberately attempted to mislead, deceive, intimidate and engage in protection with bias during the controversial January 23 sitting of Parliament when a motion of no-confidence in Finance and the Economy Minister Larry Howai ended without debate.
Rowley said this in his contribution to yesterday’s debate on a motion of no confidence in Mark in the House of Representatives.
The motion was presented earlier by Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner, who claimed that Mark had prevented his motion of no confidence in Howai from proceeding on that day when he said he had received “notice” from the High Court indicating that the parliamentary proceedings could prejudice a matter before it.
Rowley said Mark deliberately set out to mislead the House on that day and such conduct must not be allowed to happen again.
He said whereas Mark had done some good as Speaker before, he should now resign because it would effectively prevent MPs from being “examined” by the House.
He said that was what Speaker Mark tried to impose on the House last January.
Rowley said the Government was “skirting around the seriousness of that issue,” adding that citizens might perceive that “MPs are beyond the examination of the Parliament.”
Rowley referred to two previous incidents to support his claim that Mark “knew better” on the issue of sub judice.
Rowley said when Warner brought the motion of censure against Howai on January 23, Mark “in the most stentorian and school masterly attitude [proceeded] to engage the House in what was an act of deception, intimidation and protection to bias.”
He said the Speaker on that day initiated “a virtual chastisement of” Warner who was attempting to present an approved motion.
Rowley said Speaker Mark’s action “was meant to intimidate” Warner.
He said he was “surprised to see the Speaker getting up and giving these scoldings” to Warner.
Rowley said he listened and was “very concerned” when Mark said he got notice from the High Court. He said that was unusual, improper and unacceptable.
Rowley said he did two things: sought clarification from Mark and “warned the Speaker that if the line he was taking was pursued, it could have the effect of ensuring that MPs would escape scrutiny because a dangerous precedent was being set.”
Rowley said Mark “failed to be advised” and proceeded along the same line.
Rowley said the primary responsibility of the Speaker was to protect the privilege of MPs. He said on that day “the behaviour of Speaker Wade Mark—raising comity and using the sub judice rule to shut down the debate in the way he did and scolding and intimidating the Member, he was not protecting the image (but) damaging the privilege of the Member.”
Rowley said because of that the Speaker should “take his exit from this House.”
According to Rowley, the Parliament becomes nothing without that privilege and the citizens become exposed to the tyranny of the State.
Rowley stressed, “The Speaker deliberately set out to mislead the House when he said he received notice (from the court).”
He told legislators Mark’s announcement would only lead to someone thinking the notice was from the Chief Justice and the matter should be debated carefully.
Rowley said the author of the notice, Howai, “sat there with his paper, wouldn’t look up at all, because he knew it was he that sent the correspondence to the Speaker.”
Rowley repeated, “The Speaker deliberately set out to mislead the House and that deception had a purpose, which was meant to intimidate the Member.”
Rowley claimed Mark sought to intimidate Warner so that he would not “in any way embarrass the Minister of Finance; so it was protection with bias.”
He said that offence committed by Mark could be tolerated a second time. “This Speaker has offended this House so gravely that the only decent thing for him to do is to accept that he has been discovered, has been discerned and take his exit.”
Describing Mark’s behaviour as “strange,” Rowley questioned whether it “would have been influenced by some desire on his part to protect the status quo because it provided contracts and appointments and whatever else.”
Leader of Government Business, Housing Minister Dr Roodal Minister, said the motion collapsed because of Warner’s inability to proceed with it. He said the controversial notice from the Hight Court was effectively from the court as it had a stamp on it. He said Warner had praised Mark as one of the best Speakers in the country previously and because of a single incident he was attempting to discredit him.
Moonilal said while the Government had concerns with some of Mark’s ruling, it decided to speak with him privately about it. He said Mark had done a lot to make the Parliament a more democratic institution in this country.