THE Opposition did itself no favours by walking out on its own no-confidence motion against the Government on Wednesday in the House of Representatives.
Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Rowley, put the House through three days of debate on the contents of a batch of purported emails that alleged wrongdoing by top Government Ministers, but at the end of it all, rather than let the debate conclude by a statement from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, he led the Opposition MPs in a walkout. This was all very theatrical, but like the motion itself, the walkout showed that Rowley knew that all was lost, that he had been out-manoeuvred by the Prime Minister and faced with defeat he took the cowardly way out.
Rowley bemoaned that the walkout was in protest at Persad-Bissessar having the last word in the debate and so not subjecting herself to examination by the Opposition. However there are two reasons he should not have acted as if he was so offended. Firstly, as stated clearly by Speaker Wade Mark, the House standing orders clearly allow a Minister to join a debate even after the mover of the motion has wound up. For Persad-Bissessar to join the debate was not some strange aberration or any twisting of parliamentary rules but was in fact the plain intent of the original drafters of the rules of this Parliament.
Indeed, under the unmistakable heading, “Right of Reply”, standing order 34(2) plainly states, “A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary may conclude a debate on any motion which is critical of the Government, or reflects adversely on or is calculated to bring discredit upon the Government or an Officer thereof”.
Rowley has gambled by seeking to spin the walkout as a gesture of taking the moral high ground, but the downside of his act of protest is that the official parliamentary record now records that not one single vote was made in favour of his no-confidence motion, which was defeated by the 26 Government votes “against”. Notably among these votes was that of back-bencher, St Joseph MP Herbert Volney who despite his own issues still backed the Government.
In the sitting the House rejected the emails presented by Rowley as being “fabrications” in the words of Chief Whip Dr Roodal Moonilal, as being akin to a “Hollywood script” according to Education Minister Dr Tim Gopeesingh, and as a possible “cyber-crime” according to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Dookeran. Persad-Bissessar damned the emails as “a great hoax”. She said the purported emails showed many “obvious errors, inconsistencies and major discrepancies which suggest it is a wholly sham document”, created to make mischief and to mislead the House. Indeed the emails contained dates that simply do not exist on the calendar, plus no-existent email addresses such as ending in “dot.con” rather than the usual “dot.com”, and possessed too few characters to be valid.
As it stands, Speaker Mark agreed with Persad-Bissessar’s view that enough proof exists for a prima facie (“on the face of it”) case to send Rowley to the House’s Privileges Committee. Accusing Rowley of “deliberately and willfully misleading the House”, Persad-Bissessar said he knew or ought to have known the emails were fabrications.
Otherwise, the emails themselves have been sent to a six-person team of police officers to investigate. In the meantime, the People’s Partnership (PP) which today marks its third anniversary in office has won the day.
When the debate started on Monday we were stunned by the revelations. But as the debate progressed it became obvious that all that glitters was not gold and that Dr Rowley’s emails raised more questions and required a great deal more scrutiny than Dr Rowley was prepared for. He certainly did not expect the Government members to challenge him for proof of their authenticity, a challenge he clearly could not meet. So by Wednesday after being subjected to bruising attacks against the PNM’s record in dealing with the Judiciary, the DPP, the Opposition and the media, Dr Rowley must have realised that all was lost and now face the consequences.
You are cordially invited to join us as we commemorate a remarkable journey of the past and embark on the promising path to the future at the UNC 35th Anniversary, Interfaith Function, and Service Awards. Date: Sunday, April 28, 2024 Time: 1:00 PM onwards Location: UNC Headquarters, #31 Mulchan Seuchan Rd, Chaguanas This special occasion will be a celebration of unity, diversity, and service to the community. We will come together in solidarity to honor our shared history, embrace our differences, and pledge our commitment to a brighter tomorrow. Your presence will truly make this celebration complete as we reflect on the past with gratitude and look ahead with hope and determination. We eagerly anticipate your presence as we mark this significant milestone in the journey of the UNC.
Motion flops
THE Opposition did itself no favours by walking out on its own no-confidence motion against the Government on Wednesday in the House of Representatives.
Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Rowley, put the House through three days of debate on the contents of a batch of purported emails that alleged wrongdoing by top Government Ministers, but at the end of it all, rather than let the debate conclude by a statement from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, he led the Opposition MPs in a walkout. This was all very theatrical, but like the motion itself, the walkout showed that Rowley knew that all was lost, that he had been out-manoeuvred by the Prime Minister and faced with defeat he took the cowardly way out.
Rowley bemoaned that the walkout was in protest at Persad-Bissessar having the last word in the debate and so not subjecting herself to examination by the Opposition. However there are two reasons he should not have acted as if he was so offended. Firstly, as stated clearly by Speaker Wade Mark, the House standing orders clearly allow a Minister to join a debate even after the mover of the motion has wound up. For Persad-Bissessar to join the debate was not some strange aberration or any twisting of parliamentary rules but was in fact the plain intent of the original drafters of the rules of this Parliament.
Indeed, under the unmistakable heading, “Right of Reply”, standing order 34(2) plainly states, “A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary may conclude a debate on any motion which is critical of the Government, or reflects adversely on or is calculated to bring discredit upon the Government or an Officer thereof”.
Rowley has gambled by seeking to spin the walkout as a gesture of taking the moral high ground, but the downside of his act of protest is that the official parliamentary record now records that not one single vote was made in favour of his no-confidence motion, which was defeated by the 26 Government votes “against”. Notably among these votes was that of back-bencher, St Joseph MP Herbert Volney who despite his own issues still backed the Government.
In the sitting the House rejected the emails presented by Rowley as being “fabrications” in the words of Chief Whip Dr Roodal Moonilal, as being akin to a “Hollywood script” according to Education Minister Dr Tim Gopeesingh, and as a possible “cyber-crime” according to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Dookeran. Persad-Bissessar damned the emails as “a great hoax”. She said the purported emails showed many “obvious errors, inconsistencies and major discrepancies which suggest it is a wholly sham document”, created to make mischief and to mislead the House. Indeed the emails contained dates that simply do not exist on the calendar, plus no-existent email addresses such as ending in “dot.con” rather than the usual “dot.com”, and possessed too few characters to be valid.
As it stands, Speaker Mark agreed with Persad-Bissessar’s view that enough proof exists for a prima facie (“on the face of it”) case to send Rowley to the House’s Privileges Committee. Accusing Rowley of “deliberately and willfully misleading the House”, Persad-Bissessar said he knew or ought to have known the emails were fabrications.
Otherwise, the emails themselves have been sent to a six-person team of police officers to investigate. In the meantime, the People’s Partnership (PP) which today marks its third anniversary in office has won the day.
When the debate started on Monday we were stunned by the revelations. But as the debate progressed it became obvious that all that glitters was not gold and that Dr Rowley’s emails raised more questions and required a great deal more scrutiny than Dr Rowley was prepared for. He certainly did not expect the Government members to challenge him for proof of their authenticity, a challenge he clearly could not meet. So by Wednesday after being subjected to bruising attacks against the PNM’s record in dealing with the Judiciary, the DPP, the Opposition and the media, Dr Rowley must have realised that all was lost and now face the consequences.
Newsday Editorial
Share this:
Like this:
About the Author
A TANGLED WEB
Commentary by Suzanne Mills on Row-Emails
Upcoming Events
YouTube Channel
Follow Us
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK
FACEBOOK