Tobago East MP Vernella Alleyne-Toppin will not face disciplinary action by the Parliament, House Speaker Wade Mark has ruled.
In a statement in Parliament yesterday, Mark, while describing her recent controversial remarks about Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) leader Dr Keith Rowley as unfortunate and unparliamentary, said, “I have given careful consideration to this matter, the relevant practice referred to and find that given all the circumstances, a prima facie case does not exist.
“It is also the opinion of this Chair that it would indeed be beneath the dignity of this House to have this matter investigated by the Committee of Privileges, in light of the MP’s (Alleyne-Toppin) public apology.”
Mark’s ruling was in response to a motion by Independent Liberal Party MP Jack Warner, who called for the House to send Alleyne-Toppin before the Privileges Committee to decide on disciplinary action following her March 25 remarks about Rowley. She alleged he was a child of rape and also raised questions about the fathering of a child via alleged rape. This elicited condemnation from some quarters of the public.
Warner claimed Alleyne-Toppin had committed contempt of the House, abused the privilege of freedom of speech and brought the House into ridicule and disrepute.
Yesterday, Mark said members should be careful not to abuse freedom of speech in the House.
“In exercising this constitutional right, the individual member must be conscious of the importance for him or her to be trustworthy. It is the member who ultimately will be judged by an increasingly critical public,” he said.
He said parliamentary privilege carries with it responsibilities as well as rights, “and those responsibilities ought to be exercised not only within the rules laid down by the House but in conformity with the standards this House expects of its members.”
Mark said irresponsible or reckless use of the privilege of free speech in the House “can be prejudicial to the national interest, injure persons who have no recourse within this House and tarnish the dignity of all honourable members as well as this House itself.
“Indeed, the reckless use of this right can diminish the value of the right to this House collectively and to members individually. It is also beyond doubt that all honourable members will further agree that the strongest safeguard against abuse is the self-discipline of individual members.”
Public condemnation
Mark said Alleyne-Toppin uttered remarks which have subsequently received vociferous condemnation in the public domain.
He admitted that some of those remarks were indeed unfortunate and unparliamentary.
“The strong condemnation of these remarks published in the media has been regarded by the Speaker as reflections on this House and its members,” he said.
“The member for Tobago East may have been adjudged guilty of contempt by those persons in the public domain who have chosen to voice their opinions. However, it is this House, and only this House, that is empowered to determine whether the member for Tobago East committed a breach of privilege by way of contempt. I (have) noted the member apologised to this House on Wednesday, April 8...and noted the member offered this apology at the very first opportunity to so do.”
He said in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and India, it was well-established parliamentary practice that the House might enforce the observance of its privileges by requesting an apology.
“In Australia, although the House may consider that a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed, it may take no further action or it may decide, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to ‘consult its own dignity’ by taking no punitive action.
“Similarly, in India, when the offender tenders an apology, the House generally doesn’t proceed with the matter, whether or not the House/Privileges Committee has come to the decision that a breach of privilege or contempt of the House has been committed,” he said.