Kamla to Rowley: Respect the Law in Tobago Deadlock

Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, S.C., MP,

I am very disturbed by the statements made today by the Prime Minister because his suggestions for ending the THA impasse are contrary to the existing law of Trinidad and Tobago and contrary to the democratic will of the people of Tobago.

We do not support the suggestions made by him.

The Prime Minister is totally wrong.

There is no need for Parliamentary intervention to change the law.

There is no need for EBC intervention to change boundaries.

There is no need for fresh elections.

There is no need for the previous Executive Council to remain in office.

The existing law as contained in the THA Act and the THA Standing Orders is very clear and explicit about what needs to be done in the current situation.

The use of the existing law to break the THA tie will permit a new Executive Council to be appointed thereby ensuring that the democratic will of the people is respected. In this way public money can be spent in accordance with the democratic will of the people by a new Executive Council of the THA as opposed to the previous Executive Council of the THA.

TIE BREAKER

Standing Order 92 of the Tobago House of Assembly Standing Orders (2015) provides:

“In any matter not herein provided for, resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago ….” 

The government I led amended the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives to provide for a tie breaker in the election of the presiding officer of the House, namely, the Speaker.

Standing Order 4 (10) of the 2015 House of Representatives Standing Order provides:

        “If after the holding of a ballot referred to in paragraph (9) of this Standing Order the votes remain equal, the Clerk must determine by lot which candidate is to be eliminated.”

*{Please see full legal provisions below}

It is imperative that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet follow the current law as set out in the THA and House of Representatives Standing Orders. To do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the people of Tobago.

There is precedent for breaking an equality of votes. Under the then law, at different times, the Siparia local government body and, Mayaro determined a tie by lot.

In addition, it is imperative that, if any amendments are to be made to the law, there must be consultation with the people of Tobago.

The UNC will not accept any piecemeal legislation brought to Parliament without consultation and agreement by all parties, that respects the will of the people.

While the UNC did not contest the THA election we have a Parliamentary duty to ensure that the House of Representatives is not misused and abused in any manner that is inconsistent with the rule of law and good governance in our Republic.

In this present circumstance, it is not for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to dictate the affairs of Tobago. It is for the Clerk of the Tobago House of Assembly and the Clerk alone to follow the law and parliamentary provisions already established to resolve this deadlock in Tobago.

The Prime Minister must respect the existing law and do what is in the best interest of the people of Tobago.

*LAW

THA Standing Orders

Whilst resolution of a tie in perpetuum is not expressly contemplated by the THA Standing Orders, Standing Order 92 provides:

“Rules in cases not provided for by Standing Orders:

92. (1) In any matter not herein provided for, resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago which shall be followed as far as the same may be applicable to this Assembly, and not inconsistent with these Standing Orders nor with the practice of this Assembly.

(2) In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of the Assembly shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant usage and practice of the House of Representatives.

(3) No restrictions which the House of Representatives has introduced by Standing Order shall be deemed to extend to this Assembly or to its members until the Assembly has provided by Standing Order for such restriction.”

HOUSE OF REPRSENTATIVES STANDING ORDER

(i)                Standing Order 4 of the HOR S.O. provides for the election of a Speaker (note S.O. 7 describes the Speaker of the House as the Presiding Officer of the House).

(ii)              Standing Order 4 (6) addresses the situation ‘where there are two nominations’:

“(6) If two (2) candidates are nominated for election as Speaker, the Clerk shall propose the question that the candidate who was first proposed should be the Speaker. If that proposal is approved by a majority of the Members of the House, the Clerk shall declare that candidate to have been elected as Speaker.

If the proposal is negatived, the Clerk shall propose a like question in respect of the other candidate. In the event of a tie, the Clerk shall proceed in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Standing Order.”

(iii)             Standing Order 4 (10) provides:

“If after the holding of a ballot referred to in paragraph (9) of this Standing Order the votes remain equal, the Clerk must determine by lot which candidate is to be eliminated.”

(Standing Order 9 states, “Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest number of votes shall be eliminated and the ballot held again for the remaining candidates until one candidate receives the vote of a majority of Members of the House.”

Note: This process in paragraph 9 was tested and exhausted after the 12 THA Assemblymen were sworn in on 28 January 2021. The position remains a 6/ 6 deadlock.)

Kamla  Persad-Bissessar, SC, MP

3 February 2020