20210707, unrevised senate debate - wednesday july 7, 2021

1

Leave of Absence 2021.07.07

UNREVISED

SENATE

Wednesday, July 07, 2021

The Senate met at 10.00 a.m.

PRAYERS

[MR. VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair]

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Mr. Vice-President: Hon. Senators, Sen. Evans Welch has requested leave of

absence for today’s sitting. The leave the Member seeks is granted.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS

(PRESENTATION)

Sen. Anthony Vieira: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. I have the honour to

present the following reports as listed on the Order Paper in my name:

State Enterprises

National Schools Dietary Services Limited

First Report of the Joint Select Committee on State Enterprises on an inquiry

to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the operations of

National Schools Dietary Services Limited (NSDSL), and the measures

implemented to ensure the delivery of meals in the context of the COVID-19

safety requirements, First Session (2020/2021), Twelfth Parliament.

National Infrastructure Development Company Limited

Second Report of the Joint Select Committee on State Enterprises on an

inquiry into the operations of the National Infrastructure Development

Company Limited (NIDCO) including its compulsory land acquisition in

relation to major projects, First Session (2020/2021), Twelfth Parliament.

Parliament Webmaster

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER Unofficial Hansard This transcript of parliamentary proceedings is an unofficial version of the Hansard and may contain inaccuracies. It is hereby published for general reference purposes only. The final edited version of the Hansard will be published when available.

2

Joint Select Committee Reports (Presentation) 2021.07.07

UNREVISED

Foreign Affairs

Foreign Policy of Trinidad and Tobago

Sen. the Hon. Paula Gopee-Scoon: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. I

have the honour to present the following report, as listed on the Order Paper in my

name:

First Report of the Joint Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on an

Examination of the Foreign Policy of Trinidad and Tobago, First Session

(2020/2021), Twelfth Parliament.

Thank you.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (Sen. The Hon. Clarence

Rambharat): Mr. Vice-President, there are four questions on the Order Paper, 110

was already referred and the Government will respond to the other three questions

on the Order Paper. Thank you.

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark.

PTSC Carlsen Field Compound Fire

(Measures to prevent Recurrence)

135. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of Works and Transport:

In light of the recent fire at the PTSC’s Carlsen Field compound which

destroyed several “shell” buses, can the Minister indicate the action being

taken to prevent such a recurrence?

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Rohan Sinanan): Thank

you, Mr. Vice-President. The PTSC keeps defunct and derelict buses at its 10-acre

compound located at Tanteak in Carlsen Field. Subsequent to the fire at the site on

Tuesday 23 March, 2021, an initial investigation was conducted. Based on a report

received, the fire was as a result of unlawful elements gaining access to the facility

3

Oral Answers to Questions (cont’d) 2021.07.07

UNREVISED

and attempting to remove scrap metal. Subsequent to being interrupted by the on-

site security personnel, the perpetrators started setting fire to the bus shells as an

act of revenge.

To prevent the recurrence of such an event, the PTSC has implemented a

number of measures which include: The repositioning of the bus shells unit into a

more confined and secured formation, the installation of solar powered lights and

cameras, installation of a new lift barrier at the main entrance to the compound,

and the elevation of a guard booth to enhance overall surveillance and response.

Mr. Vice-President, the PTSC is of the view that these measures will

mitigate any future attempts at breach in the security, and have a beneficial impact

and protect the PTSC assets. Thank you.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, through you to the hon. Minister. Hon. Minister,

can you advise this Parliament what plans are there in place by the PTSC to deal

with all these shell buses that remain in that particular area, identified by your good

self, in an effort to address the environmental hazard that will ultimately result

from those buses, shell buses, being on that particular location?

Sen. The Hon. R. Sinanan: Mr. Vice-President, Sen. Mark should be aware that

there is a process to follow when you are dealing with Government assets, and the

PTSC from time to time will engage that process. PTSC is an active corporation

and they will always have derelict vehicles, but they do engage the process to

reduce that stock from time to time. Thank you.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, can the Minister indicate to us, whether he can

share with the Senate I should ask, the value put to these shell buses by the PTSC?

Has a value been attached to these buses, shell buses?

Sen. The Hon. R. Sinanan: Again, Mr. Vice-President, these are derelict vehicles.

However, there is a process in order to relieve yourself of state assets. So they

4


UNREVISED

would from time to time have an auction, once the process is completed. So there

is no real value that you can say is a book value, because these assets would have

been written down at the end of the day. So once you put an auction, of course

following all the correct procedures, that is the actual value you get after the

auction. Thank you.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, can the Minister indicate whether PTSC has

apprised him of a schedule that would effect auctions of these shell buses over a

period of time? Do you have that kind of information before you as the hon.

Minister, from the PTSC?

Sen. The Hon. R. Sinanan: Mr. Vice-President, again, no. There is no schedule

for that. It is a process, and once they have enough vehicles then they initiate the

process. It is a process that you would work with the Board of Surveys to ensure

that the Government procedures are followed. But there is no scheduling for it. It is

not only at the PTSC, it is followed by every other Government institution. Thank

you.


Sen. Mark: Question No. 136 to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Vice-President: Minister of Health.

Trinidad and Tobago Nurses and Midwives

(Migration of)

136. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of Health:

Can the Minister outline the steps being taken to prevent the migration of

experienced nurses and midwives as has been reported?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Terrence Deyalsingh): Thank you very much, Mr.

Vice-President. Good morning to you and good morning to Members of this

honourable Chamber.

5


UNREVISED

Trinidad and Tobago, like many other countries, does experience a

migration of nurses and midwives; this is not new. To sustain the provision of

health care services within our public health care system, the retention of our

nursing staff is of high priority and there are several strategies being implemented

by the regional health authorities to retain their services.

There are several opportunities for continuous career and professional

development, including training that facilitates the upward mobility, and allow

nurses to specialize as registered nurses, HIV/AIDS nurses, trauma nurses,

oncology nurses, mental health nurses, ICU nurses, midwives and district health

visitors.

Further, Mr. Vice-President, over the years, the regional health authorities

continuously created a positive work environment to retain staff by granting

incentives for workload management, twilight shifts, job sharing, autonomy,

clinical and social support, work/life balances and recognition and appreciation

through awards for service and excellence.

I wish to indicate that during the last year, a total of 106 nurses have

resigned for various reasons or have been reassigned, including pregnancy, asking

to be reassigned to other RHAs, so they are not lost, and migration. That is a loss.

Notably, during the period October 2020 to May 2021, the number of

registered nurses hired to fill vacancies and to provide increased nursing coverage

for COVID-19, was 255. So there has been a net increase in nursing staff.

Lastly, Mr. Vice-President, I wish to express my sincere thanks to our

dedicated and ever committed health care workers who continue to go beyond the

call of duty in offering an invaluable service to our population during, and even

before, this COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.


6


UNREVISED

Sen. Mark: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Can the hon. Minister indicate

whether security of tenure constitutes a critical ingredient in the continued

migration of nursing personnel out of the system? Can the hon. Minister advise on

this matter, Mr. Vice-President?

Hon. T. Deyalsingh: So, as I indicated, Mr. Vice-President, the number of 109

does not represent a massive exodus of nurses. Some were reassigned, some

resigned, they had reached their retirement age, and there were a few migrations.

On the issue that Sen. Mark has raised specifically, as Minister of Health I have

facilitated several meetings between the TTRNA and the RHAs, who are the

employers, to meet with them and treat with that issue.


Sen. Mark: Can I follow up by asking the hon. Minister whether he is aware that

large segments of the nursing personnel are, in fact, subject to three, six, one-year

contracts rather than a permanent kind of arrangement, so that there can be security

for these nursing personnel? Is the Minister aware, Mr. Vice-President, of this

situation affecting the nurses of this country?


Hon. T. Deyalsingh: Yes, I am aware.

Sen. Mark: And can you tell this honourable Senate, having regard to your

awareness, what concrete measures have you taken to address this untenable

situation involving our nursing personnel, who are working literally like CEPEP

workers? Could you tell us what has been done by your good self?


Hon. T. Deyalsingh: I do not agree with the characterization, working like CEPEP

workers. All workers, whether you are a CEPEP worker or a nurse, that is

honourable work—honourable work. [Desk thumping] And I take great offence by

7


UNREVISED

the characterization of CEPEP workers as somehow dishonourable. That is to be

condemned. [Desk thumping] All workers who make an honest living, an honest

day’s work, are honourable.

As I said, I have facilitated meetings between the RHAs and TTRNA. The

wider issue, as a former trade unionist you would know, is a matter for the

collective bargaining process, between the bargaining unit and the Chief Personnel

Officer.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, dignity of workers requires permanency of

engagement of employment, [Desk thumping] and not to have workers as slaves on

a contract. So, Mr. Vice-President, can I repeat the question? [Crosstalk]

Mr. Vice-President: There is absolutely no need to be shouting across the floor

when a Member is trying to raise a question. Allow me to manage these

proceedings. Sen. Mark, again, if you have a question, please raise it. It is your

final question.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, can the Minister indicate what concrete measures

he and the Government intend to take to make our nurses permanent, and reduce

and at least cease this contract arrangement with the vast majority of nurses that is

causing demoralization among these workers?

Mr. Vice-President: So, Sen. Mark, that was the third question you asked. You

have repeated the question, so I would not allow that question. Thank you very

much, Clerk.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, I have a fourth one—

Mr. Vice-President: That is the end of your four questions.

Sen. Mark:—because it is four questions I am entitled to.

Mr. Vice-President: Yes, you can move on to question No. 135.

Sen. Mark: No, I am saying there are four supplementals.

8


UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President: That is right, and you had four on question—

Sen. Mark: I had four?

Mr. Vice-President: Yes, you had question No. 136.

Sen. Mark: “You sure?”

Mr. Vice-President: Yes, I am very sure.

Sen. Mark: Well, I am moving very fast, Sir. Thank you very much. So I now go

on to the next question, Mr. Vice-President?

Mr. Vice-President: The question on the Order Paper, Sen. Mark.

Sen. Mark: Okay. So we have relieved the Minister so quickly? Mr. Vice-

President, through you, question No. 137 to the Minister of National Security.

Mr. Vice-President: Leader of Government Business.

Beach Drownings March/April 2021

(Lifeguard Training)

137. Sen. Wade Mark asked the hon. Minister of National Security:

In light of several drownings at beaches between March/April 2021 and the

commitment by the Government to provide lifeguards with the tools and

training necessary to better perform their duties, can the Minister indicate

when will these measures be implemented?


Rambharat): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. The Ministry of National

Security has been working continuously with the Lifeguard Services Division to

provide the lifeguards with the requisite capacity and capability to fulfil their

mandate of keeping the nation’s beaches safe for beachgoers and sea bathers alike,

and to do this in a modern and professional manner.

To this end, the Ministry of National Security, in collaboration with the

Lifeguard Services Division, has engaged in a number of initiatives geared towards

9


UNREVISED

enhancing the facilities, equipment and manpower of the lifeguards, so that they

can execute their mandate more effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Vice-President, I will identify three of those initiatives. The first is the

implementation of continuous training to lifeguards in safety protocols and use of

equipment for both the safety of the public and the lifeguards. Second, the

procurement of additional safety equipment and the enactment of new safety

protocols in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. And, three, the recent purchase and

handover of three brand new jet skis to the Lifeguard Services Division on April

29, 2021, for use by lifeguards at Mayaro, Maracas and Las Cuevas beaches. The

lifeguards who are to use the jet skis were trained by a highly skilled and

experienced lifeguard professional from Australia. They were trained in both

rescue with the jet skis, and the maintenance of the jet skis. I thank you very much.


Sen. Mark: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Can the hon. Minister indicate what

specific safety equipment has been procured?

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Mr. Vice-President, at this time I can only say that

the one that I am aware of is the one that I have just described, the new jet skis, and

the rest is referred to as additional safety equipment.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, can the hon. Minister give an undertaking that he

would provide to this House the rest of the safety equipment that the Government

has procured for lifeguards?

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: I will give an undertaking to do so by the next

sitting. Thank you.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, can the hon. Minister indicate whether three jet

skis, given the amount of beaches that we have in our country, whether three jet

skis are adequate given the recent number of drownings that we have experienced,

10


UNREVISED

not only in Trinidad, but even in Tobago? So can the Minister indicate whether the

Government intends to purchase more jet skis for our lifeguards to save people

who may be drowning?

Mr. Vice-President: So, is the question that the jet skis are adequate, or is the

question that are they going to get more jet skis?

Sen. Mark: No, I am asking the hon. Minister whether the Government intends to

purchase more jet skis. That is all.


Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Mr. Vice-President, I have indicated that the

Government has acquired three, and as the Ministry of National Security continues

to review and work with the Lifeguard Services Division, it is committed to ensure

that they have the appropriate equipment that they need. I believe that these three

areas, being the most used beaches, were identified for priority. Thank you.


Sen. Mark: Okay, Sir.


STANDING ORDER 77(3)

(BILLS RESTORED TO SECOND SESSION)


Rambharat): Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. In accordance with Standing Order

77(3), I beg to move that the following Bills be restored to the Order Paper in the

Second Session 2021/ 2022 of the Twelfth Parliament:

The Shipping Bill, 2020;

The Fisheries Management (No. 2) Bill, 2020;

The Livestock and Livestock Products Board (Repeal) Bill, 2021; and

The Foreign Labour Contracts (Repeal) Bill, 2021.

11

Standing Order 77(3) 2021.07.07

(Bills Restored to Second Session)

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES REPORT

(ADOPTION)



Rambharat): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.

Sen. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, on a procedural point, and I would like you to

clear the air for me before my colleague takes the floor.

Having regard to your good self being Chairman of this Privileges

Committee, I would like to ask you as the Vice-President, whether it is your view

that you might be somewhat compromised, having regard to your role as Chairman

of our Committee, and in those circumstances where you sit at this time, you

may—and I am not accusing anyone of anything, including yourself, but I am just

saying perception and the apparent perception is critical—whether you would not

want to recuse yourself and let us vote for an Independent Senator to sit? Because

we are dealing with the rights of Members here, and whether you would want to

recuse yourself and allow an Independent Senator to take the Chair for this matter,

and this matter only, so that there could be—the scales of justice could be balanced

and fair in these proceedings?

It is a suggestion, a proposal for your consideration. I cast no aspersions on

you as our Presiding Officer. I am just saying the perception as Chairman of our

Privileges Committee and now sitting to preside on a matter that you chaired,

could be misinterpreted. That is all I am advising.

Mr. Vice-President: So, hon. Members, having regard to the question just raised

12

Committee of Privileges Report (Adoption) 2021.07.07


UNREVISED

by Member Mark, Sen. Mark is well aware, having fulfilled a role in a past tense,

that the Standing Orders do provide that the Chairman of the Privileges Committee

is, indeed, the President of the Senate, who then is invited to preside over the

matters of privileges, once the report is laid in the Parliament.

What is occurring here today, by way of my good self, having chaired that

Privileges Committee, once the President of the Senate recused herself, is not

untoward, and is actually in keeping with the procedure of Parliament, both in the

Lower House and in the Upper House. Leader of Government Business.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Mr. Vice-President, I thank you for the

opportunity. I beg to move the following Motion standing in my name:

Be it resolved that this House adopt the Report of the Committee of

Privileges of the Senate, First Session (2020/2021) Twelfth Parliament, on

the matter of Contempt of Parliament.

Mr. Vice-President, I am happy to speak against the backdrop of Sen. Mark’s

intervention, and in particular his reference to perception, because what I am about

to go into is not perception, this is reality, and I would not allow anybody during

the course of the debate to water down what is before us.

I want you to Google the name “Brittany Higgins” because the Parliament

and Australia, and Parliaments across the world, are consumed by an allegation

made by Brittany Higgins, member of staff of the Australian Parliament, against a

Minister relating to rape, and that has taken over even the Prime Minister in

Australia.

It has to do with, not just the allegations, but something that is just as bad as

an allegation, and that is failure to act, and not just failure to act, but failure to

acknowledge, and Australia is grappling with it.

Earlier this year, two days ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada

13



UNREVISED

announced the appointment of a new Governor General in Canada. She comes

from the First Nations, but that is not as important as why she had to be appointed.

And it had to do with allegations made against Julie Payette, an outstanding

Canadian, former astronaut, on the issue of creating a toxic culture in the

workplace, the office of the Governor General of Canada.

These are the highest institutions in the countries, the Parliament in

Australia, the Governor General’s Office in Canada. And Julie Payette, after Prime

Minister Justin Trudeau commissioned an investigation upon the presentation of

the report to the Prime Minister, Payette resigned.

What we have before us today, and I make no apologies for saying this, is

not just an issue of contempt. What I see here is the prospect of a toxic culture

being created in this Parliament and outside this Parliament. This is not just about

contempt. I see the prospect, unless we act today—this is a workplace, you know,

sometimes we forget that. A full-time workplace for all who are in the Chamber

right now.

I spoke to my wife early this morning, and I asked her permission to take

credit, because years ago when I embarked professionally on occupational safety

and health as part of my profession, very early on it stuck in my head what we

were taught, and it is one principle. No one should leave home to go to work and

end up dead. And in occupational safety and health, we had to be committed to

preserving lives. It is a workplace experience that my wife faced that led her to

develop, not just her career, but an international advocacy on the issue of

workplace bullying and harassment.

10.30 a.m.

Because a lot of you do not know, and I forgive you for not knowing, that

people who are intimidated, harassed and bullied have committed suicide. Top

14



UNREVISED

bankers and top persons in corporate life and politicians, because they are working

in a toxic workplace, and it is not just the bullying and harassment, as my wife

faced, but the lack of acknowledgment and action. And if I ask my friends on the

Opposition to do one thing today, I ask them to acknowledge that the conduct of

the Member is a precursor to a toxic culture in this House in this Parliament if it

does not already exist. I want you to keep that in mind throughout.

I want you to also keep some things in mind, that what perpetuates, you see

sexual harassment, harassment, bullying and those things, I make no apologies for

saying it here. A lot of the times it is perpetuated by boys clubs who seek to lock

out or minimize the participation of women in the workplace in leadership

positions and in politics. [Desk thumping] And we have 14 female Senators in this

House, 13 of whom can be heard today, and I say to the three on the Opposition

Benches, I look forward to hearing from you. And the girls and women in this

country and this region and Parliaments across the country, including Britany

Higgins, look forward to hearing from you, because if I do not convince you today,

no one will ever convince you and you would be unable to recognize, and I will sit

and wait. I know my colleague Sen. John is a no-nonsense woman in the

workplace, I will sit and wait to hear one of you appear in court on a matter

relating to bullying, harassment and the toxic work culture and you will say what I

said today but did not support it today.

I want to tell you this—I want to say 10 things very quickly before I get to

the report. I have been around long enough to tell you that this conduct I am going

to talk about is unprecedented, not just in this Senate or in this Parliament but in

any Parliament anywhere in the world. I will tell you it is without parallel; I would

tell you it exposes our Standing Orders to the point that we may need to take action

in relation to the Standing Orders; I will tell you that this cannot be condoned, that

15



UNREVISED

it must be stopped, that the evidence is there, that the Minority Report is

misleading, that the Motion must be supported, that the dignity of this Senate must

be preserved. [Desk thumping]

And the tenth thing I will say to you is this: It could happen to anyone of us

speaking on this report today. It could happen because I am convinced, based on

what I saw and read in that transcript, that this is about intimidation and this is

about shutting people up, and this is about keeping people out of public life. Those

are the 10 things I will address today.

This, Mr. Vice-President, was a committee of five. I was appointed to the

Committee for the purpose of this matter having regard to the recusal of the

President of the Senate. And the Committee comprised your good self as chairman,

Member Mitchell, Member Mark, Member Deonarine and myself. The terms of

reference related to a matter raised by the former Leader of Government Business,

Sen. Khan on March 02, 2021. And the matter raised and referred deals with his

contention, contention of the Leader of Government Business that Sen. Anil

Roberts committed contempt of the Senate on February 23rd and 26th, 2021. Take

careful note of what I said, contempt of the Senate, not of a person, not of an

individual, but an institution in this country. In the same way the Office of the

Governor General in Canada and the Parliament in Australia are institutions, this is

an institution in this country.

The Committee, Mr. Vice-President, had the support of the Secretariat and

we are thankful for the Secretariat led by Mr. Caesar. We had Mr. Greenidge, Mr.

Lucio, Ms. La Roche, Kaleem Hosein and Katharina Gokool. There were seven

meetings of the Committee, Mr. Vice-President, and at the first meeting held on

March 12, 2021, the Committee adopted a particular process and three things

happened at that first meeting. The first, the Committee was provided with certain

16



UNREVISED

reading material, three in particular. The Committee was provided with transcripts,

and at this point I will tell you that the matter referred to the Committee in relation

to February 23rd and 26th dealt with two videos. And I cannot recall in this

Parliament a privileges matter involving videos and I will make a comment on that

later on.

So, this fact-finding mission of the Committee was in relation to two videos,

and to support us, transcripts were provided. And I take the opportunity at this

point to tell you this. One video was very short and the transcript was very short, a

page. The other video was 90 minutes long, 90 minutes long and the transcript is

over 50 pages. And I will tell you why I point that out later on.

The third thing the Committee did on that first meeting was to decide on

writing the Member, on writing the Member in relation to the matter that was

referred to the Committee among other things.

At the second meeting, the Committee discussed the written material that

had been provided at the first meeting and then went into viewing the video, the

two videos, the recordings and upon completion of that, there was a discussion on

the recordings.

At the third meeting, Members had the opportunity—let me correct myself.

At the second meeting, the Committee looked at the February 23, 2021 video, the

shorter one. And at the third meeting, the Committee viewed the longer video

which is the one of February 26, 2021. And everything I say today now has

significance to what I will say later on. And at that third meeting the Committee

discussed what was viewed and made comments on the video, both videos which

had been viewed at that time.

And at the meeting the Committee took the decision to formally invite Sen.

Roberts to appear before it. At the fourth meeting, April 23rd, the Committee was

17



UNREVISED

advised that on April 20th correspondence was received from an attorney-at-law

purporting to represent Sen. Roberts. And I am sure we will hear arguments on the

legality and the constitutionality of having an attorney, not only write on behalf of

the Member but also appear with the Member for the purpose of providing

professional advice. I am sure we are going to hear that. But as it is now and as the

Committee unanimously agreed, the attorney-at-law could not write on behalf of or

appear with the Member who is before the Privileges Committee, unanimously,

and that was at the fourth meeting.

At the fifth meeting, May 04, 2021, the Committee considered an email from

Mr. Anil Roberts dated April 30, 2020. And in that email the Member indicated

that he was adopting the concerns of his attorney in relation to the Committee’s

adherence to COVID-19 Public Health Regulations. And it was from this point, the

fifth meeting, that the Member took the position that he was not satisfied to the

extent that he took the position that the Privileges Committee was in breach of the

law in meeting, breach of the COVID Public Health Regulations by meeting and

indicated that he was not prepared to breach the regulations by appearing before

the Committee.

And from the sixth and seventh meeting the Committee took the position,

because I will just reflect on something. From the first meeting, the Committee

discussed the use of virtual meetings and decided that meetings of the Committee

unless they were merely procedural or administrative meetings, the meetings of the

Committee would be held in person; the Committee. I felt that not because I am

lazy, I felt that we should meet from time to time virtually. It was my friend, he is

free to dispute that, Sen. Mark who made the case for meeting in present, meeting

in person, that we could talk and we could interact. He wanted the meetings in

person and we adopted that position. And up until the fifth meeting, the COVID

18



UNREVISED

issue came up and the Members, the Committee and anybody could contradict me.

The record, the Minutes form part of your Report. The minutes, the confirmed

Minutes of the first six meetings form part of your Report and the unconfirmed

meeting of the seventh meeting because the seven the meeting was the last meeting

and we did not meet to confirm it, unconfirmed Minutes of the seventh meeting

form part of your Report.

And the Committee agreed that every stage we came to the building and we

waited until the start, the expected time of arrival of the Member, once he did not

appear, calls were made and we waited. In one case more than an hour, he did not

arrive and the Committee decided that the opportunity would be given to the

Member and to all Members because at that time we were in one room, socially

distanced and masked, and the facility was offered for any Member wanting to be

in a separate room to be there in the Parliament building and also the Member who

was requested to appear before the Committee was also given the opportunity to

attend in a room at the Parliament in accordance with all the COVID protocols to

participate in the work of the Committee, and he consistently declined.

And you go through the Minutes of meetings one to six and you will see at

no point there was a minority view expressed. You would only find the Minutes of

the seventh meeting which I will tell you are unconfirmed Minutes, that my friend

Sen. Mark took exception on one and one point only. You would see that he did

not take exception to the deliberations and findings of the Committee, you would

see that and you would see that the only point in which he took exception was on

the issue of the sanction, the issue of the sanction. And I could tell you from my

part, I offered one view on the sanction and that view was, I would support

whatever the Committee goes with because these Standing Orders do not provide

the sanction that is appropriate for this conduct. [Desk thumping] It does not. And

19



UNREVISED

for half an hour I was given the opportunity by the Committee on that seventh

meeting to express my views and told them before I said it. I said, “What I am

about to say will surprise you”.

I recently turned 50 and I said to them, I have followed the Parliament of

Trinidad and Tobago for 40 years of my life, 40 and not just this Parliament in later

years, Parliaments across the world. And part of my career relates to the work of

Parliament. I had the opportunity to be in the first Youth Parliament in 1987 in this

country and many of you do not know, I had the opportunity to be in the first

model Parliament in Canada, the first one, and that was preceded by a university

programme to prepare for the model Parliament. I am not the brightest or the best

but I know enough. I know enough to know that what this Committee was dealing

with was unprecedented conduct. And I went through, as I will now go through

and defend the 10 points that I made at the start because this must not be viewed as

what my friend Sen. Mark said to us in the Committee, an emotional reaction. The

Member should be given time to show remorse, to apologize. This was not

emotional, this was not a knee jerk, this is not getting upset, this is not a Facebook

post or an Instagram post or a tweet. This is constructed, deliberate, well-

constructed, well-orchestrated, well-planned and I dare say, well-executed and I

will tell you why. There are two intentions before—two intentions form part of the

conduct now found by this Committee to be contemptuous and I will tell you that.

Let me talk about those 10 points I have raised with you. This is

unprecedented and it is unprecedented because of this. I listened to the Committee

in its deliberations and I read what Sen. Mark has put in as a Minority Report and

it is disingenuous, disrespectful and degrading [Desk thumping] and it does not

represent the work.

Sen. Mark is like an institution, you know. I have said that on the record, 30

20



UNREVISED

years, part of which was a Presiding Officer in the other place and to bring this

down, having seen 90 minutes of disregard and disrespect for this Senate, to bring

this down almost as a preschooler to the level that paragraph 30 of the Minority

Report which you can find at pages 121 to 129 of the Report, Sen. Mark brings it

down to, at 29:

“…the undersigned does not support that part of the Recommendations of

the Report, which provides that Senator Anil Roberts proffer an apology.”

And he goes on, note very carefully, you know. These are the recommendations

which support what I said. There is no dispute with the findings, you know, and

what was seen and what was heard and what was discussed. It comes down to a

disagreement on the sanction. And what he proposes, Sen. Mark, he proposes to

replace it with is at para 30:

“The undersigned recommends that the President issue guidance based on

existing rules of the Senate and possibly new rules to all members on the

appropriate use of social media by members of the Senate wherever

reporting on parliamentary proceedings, as well as a programme of training

for all members on the practice and procedures of Parliament.”

And he closes on the issue of social media.

I tell you this, this is not a social media matter and I will tell you why. As I

said to Committee and I say to you now, social media started off exactly as that.

Just as email started off as an internal mechanism for communication that has

become the global media of communication in social life, in personal life, in

criminal life and corporate life. Social media started off just so as a fun thing,

Facebook where you could post, Twitter is a social thing, WhatsApp, personal

communication and they have evolved. Facebook now rivals BBC, NBC, TTT,

everybody else as a broadcasting corporation. Facebook is not social, you pay for

21



UNREVISED

ads, you pay to boost. As we saw in the US, you pay to remove governments; you

pay Facebook to help you to remove governments. Look at what is happening with

Twitter now in India. You know what the Indian Government is asking them to

sign on to. The Indian Government being prepared to lose Twitter. And I made the

point to the Committee that when you look at Facebook now and the ability to

broadcast live, this is not three friends communicating to each other and posting

dog and cat or like me, food and chataigne. Social media is big broadcast media

and what the Member has done, the Member has created a brand inviting people to

come and hear and participate in his brand.

If you go to the other fun ones that I like to watch, I like to watch “Wet man

Kenrick”. “Wet man Kenrick” has about 10 advertisers. The other fella from south

started off a lot of advertisers, so this thing is not just about social entertainment.

This is about money, viewership and building a brand, and in the politics of

Trinidad and Tobago Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter are being used to build

political brands but they are also being used as elements of intimidation.

So, I distinguish between a 90-minute broadcast to the world and a

Facebook post with a photo of a dog, a cat or a chataigne. This is not social media.

This is organized, orchestrated competing with TTT, CNC and I watched it, you

know. I watch douglAR politics, you know, and I know sometimes even my own

party has a parallel broadcast, a constituency doing something and I have seen 85

persons viewing and when I am on douglAR politics and I see 9,000 persons

viewing, so this is well-organized. And let me tell you of the extent of the

organization.

So that is the first point. It is unprecedented in the sense that the complaint

alleges conduct in relation to two videos. We have not had a Privilege Committee

matter like that. And do not be distracted by any discussion that it is social media.

22



UNREVISED

It is very unsocial, dangerous, deceptive, destructive and it must be stopped. [Desk

thumping] I say it is without parallel, and it is without parallel because of the reach

of this conduct and that is why I said it is orchestrated. It has two motives. One is

to build a political brand and build a political mischief-making corporation and to

intimidate. But the other side of it is to reach far and wide as possible, and you

might think that this just for UNC people to watch, this is for everybody and let me

tell you where it has reached.

I was following the Attorney General and I do not wish to get into the

politics of Guyana except to say that I had a relationship with the current Attorney

General of Guyana, Anil Nandlall, a professional relationship and I have no

problems with him personally or professionally. I have no problems, I want to put

that on the record. But I want to say this. On June 22, 2021, I was viewing Mr.

Nandlall’s broadcast because he has a programme that is broadcast by a social

media where he does a wrap up of the week in politics and the June 22, 2021,

programme dealt with a number of things. But when you go to that video and when

you get to the 16-minute mark he is talking about the vaccines. And at a certain

point this is what AG Nandlall said and I quote.

I recommend that you listen to that video that is so widely circulated on

Facebook. Listen carefully how Anil Roberts, how he slaughtered Prime

Minister Rowley. I do not need to say anything.

11.00 a.m.

In other words, this supports what I said, that the viewership and the

following of these broadcast go beyond the UNC and Couva and it is available

internationally. And other parliamentarians make use of it as Mr. Nandlal has done,

and the same way, the same way they have seen from Mr. Nandlal, AG Nandlal, to

recommend watching Anil Roberts, means that he is familiar with the programme.

23



UNREVISED

And we would have seen, or he could have seen, he may have seen, and the world

may have seen and heard what was said on February 23rd and February 26th, 2021,

in relation to the matter before us.

The fourth point I addressed was the issue, and I agree with Sen Mark on

that point, that the Standing Orders need to, we need to have a look, not only at the

Standing Orders, but at the Parliament as an institution and as a place of work,

using the parallel in Australia and in the Governor General’s office to ensure that

we recognize the potential and the destructiveness of a toxic culture in a place

where not only those in this House work, but all the employees work. Because this

is not about the President, you know. This is about the Senate. The contempt is for

the Senate. The complaint says that. And we must address the issue of the potential

for an Australian or Canadian situation to take over our institution. We must act.

The fifth point I raised is that it cannot be condoned, and I will tell you why.

The European Commission commissioned a report on the parameters on the

relationship between the Parliamentary Majority and the Opposition in a

democracy. And you know, it is not strange in Europe, because with the dawn of

the Green Party in Europe came the dawn of minority governments in Europe. I

once wrote in the Newsday then that the prospect loomed for this region and

elsewhere for the Green Party and for other third parties to force many

longstanding two-party battles to turn into third party battles just by capturing a

few seats. And if you check over a period of time, Europe became dominated by

minority governments who were forced to work with other parties, particularly the

Green Party, until the Green Party started to take hold of governments. With

respect to Canada, not at the federal level, but at the provincial level it spread even

to Canada.

In this report dated 24 June, 2019, Opinion No. 845, this is what the report

24



UNREVISED

says in relation to the shared responsibility of the majority and opposition towards

society. And I quote:

“The fourth principle is that of shared responsibility of the majority and

opposition towards society, or the principle of political solidarity, which

should transcend party divisions. Both the majority and the opposition have

to act based on the same joint and responsible commitment to the public

interest of the citizens, who are the legitimate source of democratic power.

This commitment has to come first, surpassing the stakes of any political

confrontation—although such confrontations are normal and essential in a

democracy.”

In other words, when we confront a matter like this it is not for discussion on

the basis of majority and opposition. It is for an elevated discussion on what the

society expects of us as an institution, and a lawmaking institution, and how we

should govern ourselves. And I ask you again to take careful note to what the

report says, and to deal in a dispassionate way with the recommendations and the

findings before you get there. I want to now—I have said the conduct must be

stopped.

The seventh thing I raised was the video itself. And I will use the word

“orchestrated”, and I have used it very deliberately, and I got there because Sen.

Mark was saying in the Committee—

Mr. Vice-President: Senator, you have five more minutes.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Thank you—that this was emotional and the sort

of thing that somebody could show some remorse on. I disagree. Because when

you get to the first—the transcript of the first recording 23 February, 2021, you

would see the stage is set. We have somebody described as—a place described as

“planet Senatah”, and the leader of that place is “Headmistress Kangaroo”. And

25



UNREVISED

you would see in the report where the Committee says, when the images of the

President appeared, the image of the kangaroo appeared. And in the mind of the

listener, of the viewer and the listener, the “Headmistress Kangaroo” and the

matters being discussed is clearly the President of the House.

And it is in the second video, the 90-minute video, that you see the

discussions taking place and the use of parliamentary material. The use of satire,

all of which are covered by our Standing Orders, and all of which have been

breached. And you would see why I say that this is deliberate and orchestrated.

You would see on page 2 of the transcript of that meeting, you would see

where the Member says, on page 2:

“It is part two of planet Senatah with Headmistress Kangaroo and

Booming Voice.”

“It is part two”. This is not an emotional response; “part two” means that the

Member came there on the 26th to continue what he started. [Desk thumping] This

is deliberate, orchestrated, and this is the use of what I describe as a broadcasting

entity, reaching the ears of the AG of Guyana and God alone knows who else. And

it does not stop there, I did not orchestrate loosely. I did not use it loosely. On page

3—he has not got to the 90 minutes yet you know. He is on page 3—the

Member—and he says:

“Chapter three, next week on planet Senatah.”

“Chapter three”, “next week”, “planet Senatah”. He then says:

“Good evening, share the live. Because let me tell yuh something. Dis ting is

not no joke, all right. Things getting serious”—look—“what took place in

Senate on Tuesday. Archie, show the people... Run it.”

And up comes one of many clips of the Senate.

When you take “planet Senatah” and “Headmistress Kangaroo”, “Booming

26



UNREVISED

Voice”, “part two” this week, “part three” promised next week, share the link,

“share the live”, this is not an emotional reaction. This is not somebody upset with

something that transpired in the course of the debate. This is not what every piece

of material says that there must be confrontation between Opposition and the

majority. There must be strong positions. You cannot be thin-skinned in politics.

You cannot be thin-skinned in public life. But you cannot and must not be exposed

to a deliberate, orchestrated and one-sided attack [Desk thumping] for conducting

yourself in the way that the Standing Orders. And you know what is in this

transcript?—fifty something pages. It is a lie. It is fooling the people about, on

page 7.

Sen. Mark: Unparliamentary language, may I ask you to rule on it?

Mr. Vice-President: Continue. Minister, you are almost done because you have a

couple seconds left.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.

What you see is a flow of misinformation in this transcript regarding the way in

which the President presided over the proceedings of this House and conducted the

meeting in accordance with the Standing Orders. And as I said at the start, I repeat

it, there are 13 females in this House. If you do not agree with me I will still say it,

that this forms part of the development a toxic workplace in this House. This is

about intimidation, and this reeks of the boys club wanting to continue keeping

women quiet and excluding them from participating. [Desk thumping] That is what

this is about. That is what this is about. And I call upon every Member of this

House to give support to this Motion to adopt this report. Mr. Vice-President, I beg

to move.

Question proposed.

Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President, we are

27


Sen. Mark (cont’d)

UNREVISED

dealing with a matter of privilege amounting to a contempt, and recommendations

for the consideration of this honourable Senate as to how this matter ought to be

addressed. Mr. Vice-President, I think it was Lord Atkin in Ambard v The Attorney

General of Trinidad and Tobago who said, and I quote:

“…no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the

ordinary right of criticising in good faith”—in private or public—“the public

act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way : the

wrong headed are permitted to err therein : provided that members of the

public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the

administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,

and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice,

they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to

suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of

ordinary men.”

Mr. Vice-President, we are dealing with a matter that touches on the rights

of Members of this House, and in doing so I would have expected my colleague to

at least address learnings in this matter in order to justify his recommendation, and

the Committee’s majority recommendation. But instead, what we were treated to

was sheer, naked, unadulterated politics. [Desk thumping] So this is political. This

is a political report. That is how the Minister brought it out today, that they have

taken a decision, that is the majority on the PNM bench, to execute their plan. And

when you listen to the vitriol dripping from the lips of the Members—of the

Member, he has not persuaded the Senate, because he has not brought forward

arguments that can convince the Senate of the rightness of the cause of the

Majority Report.

Mr. Vice-President, I want to say that when we are dealing with Members,

28



UNREVISED

any Member, Government, Opposition or Independent, we must ensure procedural

fairness. We must ensure natural justice. This is not a kangaroo court. This is a real

court of the people, so we need to be clear in what we are doing otherwise, Mr.

Vice-President, what the hon. Member spoke about earlier is what will transpire

and what will result at the end of the process. So I want to emphasize that point

very early.

And, Mr. Vice-President, when I listen to the Member, the hon. Member

who presented, my good friend, Sen. Rambharat, you know he talked about

bullying and intimidating, and trying to prevent women from upward mobility, and

literally trying to keep them in their place. Mr. Vice-President, I do not want to go

that road, but I have to respond. Who is the biggest bully we have in the Republic

of Trinidad and Tobago? [Desk thumping] Who is the biggest bully? Who is the

biggest bully we have in this country who intimidates women? Who insults

women?

Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Point of order.

Sen. W. Mark: Who? Who?

Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Point of order.

Sen. W. Mark: But you come here and you are bullying.

Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Point of order! [Crosstalk]

Mr. Vice-President: Members! Members! Members! Please, that will not be

tolerated here today!

Sen. Gopee-Scoon: But he was talking—

Mr. Vice-President: Stop! There is an established procedure which will be

followed strictly. When a point of order is raised, allow the point of order to

happen, and then allow me to rule on said point of order. That is the only

established procedure that will be allowed here. Minister of Trade and Industry,

29



UNREVISED

what is your point of order?

Sen. Gopee-Scoon: Mr. Vice-President, 46(6).

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark, you have indicated that you are responding to

what the Leader of Government Business has said in the moving of his Motion. It

is in that context that I would allow you to respond, but remember it is a response

to what he has said. It does not need to go further than that. Continue.

Sen. W. Mark: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. So, Mr. Vice-President, I was just

making the point that—without calling names—because we will have a chance for

this outside of this Chamber. But I just wanted to let you know that the Member

must look in the mirror. He must look in the mirror. Look in his party when he is

talking about bullies [Desk thumping] and not attribute that to the Opposition. That

is what he was trying to do by using Anil Roberts. I thought we would have had a

very nice debate today. But how he started off, that is the hon. Member, I am

convinced that this Committee of Privileges, the majority of members of the PNM

came to this Committee with a premeditated, preconceived, pre-calculated plan

[Desk thumping] and it is manifested today by his presence—


Sen. W. Mark:—and his presentation.

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark, I am on my legs! So the comment that you have

just made in relation to the Committee and its work, you are well aware of how

that committee operates more than any other Member in this Chamber. You are

going down a line in relation to what you have just said and you are imputing

improper motives. You are so guided.

Sen. W. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, let us deal with what I consider to be

procedural flaws in this report. If you go to my report on page 124 you would see

where I sought to develop, what I call issues that can be properly prosecuted, even

30



UNREVISED

though my colleagues may disagree, that is their right, and I will fight and defend

them at any time. But I have the right also to disagree with the majority, Mr. Vice-

President.

Now, Mr. Vice-President, the reality is that when we talk about procedural

flaws, at no point in time did my hon. friend, and even in the report—he criticized

my report, eh, remember that. I am criticizing the Majority Report. Mr. Vice-

President, at no point in time did the Member inform you and this honourable

House, why Anil Roberts failed to come. Never at one time. In the report they used

the word—the word is used, rather, he did not make himself available, he refused

to come, he chose not to come. But why he did not come? Mr. Vice-President, it is

in the appendices of this report. He wanted to come. He was dying to come. But

you know what? He said he had a medical problem. He said he had a medical

problem. Mr. Vice-President, not a single member of our Committee is a medical

doctor. None. But you know what, Mr. Vice-President? It seems to me, and I have

it in my report, that the clock was ticking away, and then we were heading towards

prorogation, and today is the last day before we go into recess. And the Committee,

the majority Committee Report did not have time to deal with what is called

“natural justice”, and therefore procedural flaws cropped up.

Mr. Vice-President, at no point in time can I recall that our Committee

indicated, let us write to Anil Roberts asking Anil Roberts to provide this

Committee with medical, with a medical certificate on his asthmatic condition. The

Member said, Mr. Vice-President, in his notes to us, to the Committee, that he has

a medical condition called asthma. That is what he said, and he said that his doctor

advised him that if he is exposed in this COVID-19 pandemic it could be

disastrous.

Mr. Vice-President, whether we want to believe it, we do not want to believe

31



UNREVISED

it, we are not medical experts. But you know what, the Committee rushed into its

decision because time is ticking away, Parliament is proroguing. Recess is starting

from midnight today. So you know what, Mr. Vice-President, at no point did it

occur to this Committee that we should request a medical report from Anil

Roberts. So that is what is going on. So the Government has come with a plan, and

you hear how they are behaving and so on in your presence? You hear their

conduct? You hear their conduct? They would not listen, because they have a plan,

Mr. Vice-President.

So, Mr. Vice-President, I am saying procedurally, we ought to have looked

into this matter. Mr. Vice-President, so we never wrote the gentleman to ask him

for a medical report so that we could be satisfied that the Member is mamaguying

us, is fooling us. Nobody asked for that report. Nobody took a decision to do it.

But you know what, Mr. Vice-President? We have put a recommendation for the

consideration, and in fact if you were listening to my good friend, Sen. Rambharat,

he said this sanction, this recommendation does not “fit the crime” that the

Member has committed. I want to say it here today, that both Randall Mitchell—

Hon. Senator: “Sen. Randall Mitchell.”

Sen. W. Mark: Is Sen. Randall Mitchell. Sen. Randall Mitchell, a member of the

Committee—

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark, could we just use the proper titles, Minister of

Tourism.

Sen. W. Mark: Oh, the Minister of Tourism, thank you very much, Mr.

Vice-President. The Minister of Tourism along with my good friend, Minister of

Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, they are on record as saying that their position is

suspending. They want to suspend Anil Roberts. They came with a plan. It was

premeditated, and it was—if it was not—

32



UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark, remember I cautioned you before about going

down that particular line which would impute improper motives.

Sen. W. Mark: Mr. Vice-President, if it was not for the expertise of the Secretary

of our Committee, who had to intervene and guide these members, we would have

had a different recommendation here today. Because what they wanted, they

wanted the back of Anil Roberts. That is what they wanted. They wanted to see

him out of this Chamber for the next year, if they could have, but good sense

prevailed and the system worked with the intention of the experts we had on our

Committee.

So, Mr. Vice-President, I am saying, firstly, we need to address that issue

that I have mentioned. Why did the Committee not write to Mr. Anil Roberts

asking for a medical certificate to justify his non-appearance? So that is the first

procedural flaw that we committed in this particular report that is before us today.

The other report, the other area, Mr. Vice-President, whether we like it or we

do not like it, the Member requested that the President of the Senate appear before

our Committee. Of course we said no. The Committee said no. But, Mr.

Vice-President, nowhere in this report did our Committee write to Anil Roberts

who wrote to us saying that he would like the President to appear before our

Committee so he could cross-examine her. We did not respond to the Member in

writing. So here we have correspondence in the appendices by Mr. Anil Roberts,

Sen. Anil Roberts, requesting that the President of the Senate appear before this

Committee so he could cross-examine her. And, Vice-President, today as we speak

Mr. Anil Roberts has not been given the courtesy of a reply from this Committee

saying, your proposal, recommendation, suggestion, proposal, whatever, has been

rejected by the Committee.

11.30 a.m.

33



UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President, may I advise you and remind you in his submission he

said that he had further written submissions to make had he been successful in

getting the President to appear before our Committee. So we denied Anil Roberts

two things: we denied him, one, the opportunity to know the thinking of the

Committee as it relates to his proposal to cross-examine the President. He never

got any correspondence whatsoever from our Committee. And secondly, buried in

his submission was a statement that he is prepared to submit further written

submissions to the Committee. Mr. Vice-President, we were denied those written

submissions because the Committee fell down on the job because we were hustling

towards prorogation and they wanted to punish; the majority wanted to punish Anil

Roberts so they committed flaw, after flaw, after flaw.

Mr. Vice-President, I am saying that when you are dealing with critical

matters like the rights of the workers, the right of a Member, you need to give the

Member an opportunity, every opportunity. You cannot just be whimsical and

arbitrary in your recommendations, you have to do it properly, otherwise, Mr.

Vice-President, it will be seen that this Committee was not very serious in its work.

So I made this point about procedural fairness.

Mr. Vice-President, the test to establish a breach of privilege, I sought to

outline on page 125, you know, trying to determine what was the intention of the

gentleman. We must never forget, whether we recognize it or not, this decision or

this action taken by Anil Roberts did not happen in a vacuum and you cannot

disconnect what happened to Anil Roberts when he was put out of this Parliament

and the statement that he ended up making on the 23rd and the 26th. So his mental

state, his state of mind at the material time cannot be dismissed.

So, Mr. Vice-President, whether we like it or not you have to connect the dots

and you cannot just dismiss it and say, you know, the only thing that we are

34



UNREVISED

looking at is what he said in the video. What did he say in video? All right, he said

what he had to say. But every time he said what he had to say, he said listen, I am

leaving it up to the members of the audience to make a decision. I am leaving it up

to the members of the audience to make a decision.

And, Mr. Vice-President, I am convinced that had Mr. Anil Roberts been

given the opportunity to appear before our Committee, we would have been able to

clear the air on a number of issues that were disturbing to us, that we wanted to

clarify, rather than to create a boogey man in our mind and come to conclusions

based on opinions. Most of the statements made by my hon. friend today are

opinions, opinions, not facts. You want to convict someone on the basis of

opinions? You cannot do that. You must have facts to support what you are saying.

So, Mr. Vice-President, my submission indicated that if you look at the events

that took place, was there a deliberate and wilful intention on the part of this

particular Senator to reflect negatively on the partiality, character and conduct of

our President and thereby bringing our Senate into disrepute? That was the view of

these persons who had already made up their minds and they are now echoing it

again, yes. And because, Mr. Vice-President, if you have a preconceived notion in

your mind about anything, “doh” matter what evidence is brought before you,

“doh” matter what facts are brought before you, you have already made up your

mind what you want to do and nobody could convince you. That is why they are

echoing, yes, yes, yes, because they made up their minds.

So, Mr. Vice-President, I am saying that we must ensure that there is justice,

there is fairness and there is no procedural space for flaws and/or deficiencies in

whatever decision this honourable Senate decides to take at the end of the process

in terms of our deliberations.

Mr. Vice-President, I have read the transcripts and I am submitting that an

35



UNREVISED

objective reading of the transcripts and all the circumstances leading up to those

two broadcasts would reveal that Sen. Anil Roberts did not set out intentionally,

deliberately, maliciously to reflect negatively on the character and conduct of our

President. That is my submission in my report. I do not believe it was done

maliciously, deliberately or intentionally. The Government is of a different view,

that is, the majority of the Committee, is of a different view.

Sen. Thompson-Ahye: Quick question.

Sen. W. Mark: And, Mr. Vice-President, I would say that we lost out.

Sen. Thompson-Ahye: May I ask a question, Mr. Vice-President? I am just

wondering, I am looking at the proceedings of the Committee and I am just

wondering if any of the issues that are raised now as Mr. Mark was a member of

the Committee, I was just wondering if that part was left out of the report or

whether these deficiencies, procedural irregularities were raised during the course

of the hearing? [Desk thumping]

Sen. W. Mark: All the points that I am raising are in my report in terms of

procedural flaws. What I have just read, Mr. Vice-President, can be found on page

126. So if my honourable friend is following the proceedings, I want to refer her to

page 126 so she will know exactly what I am saying. Those are points that I raised

and it is written in black and white for everyone to see. So I am not inventing

anything today. It is here on page 126.

Mr. Vice-President, I want to say that again on page 126, I drew to this

honourable Senate’s attention the need for us to look at what I call the whole issue

of witnesses that was not considered, that was thrown out of the window and that

was the end of the matter. Mr. Vice-President, what about where we are in terms of

the recommendation that has been put forward? Mr. Vice-President, if my

submission is one of the Member not setting out deliberately and/or intentionally to

36



UNREVISED

bring the President of the Senate into disrepute and to, in any way to impugn her

good name and character, on page 127, I referred to the need for us to explore

other alternative sanctions. And as I am on this point, let me remind my good

friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, as a former member of

several Committees of Privileges, there have been videos that have come before

our Committee. It may not have been of the nature that we dealt with in terms of

this particular matter, but I can assure him that several videos came before our

Committee in the past on Members who were brought before our committees to

deal with similar complaints of breaches of privileges and contempt of Parliament

flowing therefrom.

Mr. Vice-President, because of how this exercise was conducted, because of

what I call clear procedural flaws, because of the lack of natural justice given to

Sen. Anil Roberts by this Committee by not allowing him the opportunity to

submit further written or to make further written submissions, we were denied the

opportunity of hearing from this Senator as to whether he may have wanted to

revisit his position, I do not know. He may have wanted to, but he was not given

the opportunity to do so, Mr. Vice-President.

So, Mr. Vice-President, on page 127, paragraph 26, I made a submission

where we should explore alternative sanctions as it relates to the matter before us.

And I looked at what has happened in the House of Commons in Canada where the

House of Commons, Canadian House of Commons was very, very slow or

reluctant in invoking the House’s authority to reprimand and admonish anyone

found to have trampled upon its dignity or authority. In this regard I quoted two

cases, the 1996 Jacob case in order to demonstrate that the actions of the Member

at the material time. The Committee of Privileges called the Standing Committee

on Procedure and home affairs—or House Affairs in Canada said, and I quote:

37



UNREVISED

“…that…the actions”—of the Member that was before them on a

matter of contempt—“were ill-advised…”—and they determined that his

action—“…did not amount to contempt or a breach of parliamentary

privilege.”

Because sometimes people can get hot under the—they can get steamy, they

can become emotional. I myself could easily become Anil Roberts in terms of my

outbursts, but I mean to say I could control myself somewhat. I am saying he could

control himself too but sometimes, Mr. Vice-President, emotions can overtake your

thinking, and as a body we have to be conscious of all the factors that must be

considered when we are examining these issues that are now before us. But I as a

member of the Committee never got the opportunity, because I was debarred, as

you know, from discussing anything before this Committee with anybody. I could

not speak to anybody on this matter.

So I as a member was denied the opportunity to really interrogate Anil

Roberts had he been given the opportunity to come before the Committee to ask

him, Mr. Vice-President, at the material point in time when he had these two

programmes, videoed, and the transcripts that were there before me, what was his

thinking at that time? What would have driven him to go the route that he had

gone? And the Committee would have had the benefit, Mr. Vice-President, of what

may have driven him to that particular point. And maybe when, Mr.

Vice-President, he would have told us what would have driven him to that point,

we could have asked him the follow-up question: do you regret, do you regret

saying what you said at the material time? And would you be willing to proffer

some way of mitigating this matter? But we did not get that chance because the

Committee was racing towards the clock. So they decided to breach simple

procedural and natural justice principles.

38



UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President, on page 127, I also made reference to social media and

my friend who seems to be quite knowledgeable because he is more

knowledgeable than myself in this particular field, but based on my readings and

reflections on matters before different jurisdictions, this matter of social media has

come up time and time again and sometimes you need to advise our Members, you

cannot go down that route. And if they make errors or they make blunders or there

are certain mistakes that are committed by Members, what is being advanced on

page 127 is that we should look at ways and means of trying to correct our

Members who may go astray and advising them not to use social media platforms

in the way that it would have been used to bring about as the report said, odium,

ridicule and contempt of both the House and the Presiding Officer. And that is

why, Mr. Vice-President, I submitted for the consideration of this honourable

Senate that we should look at issuing or reissuing—


Sen. W. Mark: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President—guidance on the existing rules of

our House to all Members, right, on the use of social media whenever they are

reporting on parliamentary proceedings.

And in that context my submission on page 128is that in the absence, Mr.

Vice-President, from my perspective of any findings of a wilful, intentional and

deliberate intent on the part of Sen. Anil Roberts I also indicated that when or if I

had the opportunity of enquiring into his conduct, I would have been able to

understand the state of play at the material time as well as the state of mind of the

individual at that time. And, Mr. Vice-President, you would know also from our

experience, ignorance is no excuse for the law, we all agree. But sometimes we

have to recognize that some of our colleagues may not be fully au courant with all

the rules and proceedings of our honourable House and Senate.

39



UNREVISED

In those circumstances, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the Member in

this instance and I am saying, Mr. Vice-President, that we should try to do what is

necessary to train our Members and to expose them not only a little more to our

Standing Orders but on the do’s and don’ts as it relates to the use of the social

media platforms. And it is in that context, Mr. Vice-President, my report as the

minority on the Committee recommended the following:

I—“…do not support that part of the Recommendations of the Report,

which provides that Sen. Anil Roberts proffer an apology.”

And I indicated clearly my reasons for so recommending and I asked that the

report be amended to so reflect that approach.

I also recommended for the consideration of this honourable Senate that the

President be asked to:

“…issue guidance based on existing rules of the Senate and possibly”—

the introduction of—“new rules to all members on the appropriate use of

social media…whenever”—they are—“reporting on parliamentary

proceedings…”

And I also indicated, Mr. Vice-President, that there is also a need for a programme

of training for all our Members on the practice and procedures involving our

Parliament.

And in this context, Mr. Vice-President, I believe that in tightening up and

coming to an end, bringing my contribution to a close, I would like to say that, one,

this Committee that I served on committed certain egregious—they committed

certain serious, let us say, or let me put it in another way. There were certain

serious deficiencies flowing from this report. And I indicated procedural

weaknesses, natural justice not being offered and I believe that if these were

offered, Sen. Anil Roberts would have been in a better place today as it relates to

40



UNREVISED

the majority recommendation. I thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk

thumping]

Sen. Amrita Deonarine: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for the

opportunity to contribute to this debate on a Motion to Adopt the Report of the

Committee of Privileges of the Senate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give

an account of what really took place during this Committee. The Senate gave the

Committee the mandate to look at this matter on whether Mr. Roberts, Sen.

Roberts’ statements using satirical context on his show douglAR politics had

bought this Senate into ridicule and odium. So the subject in question, Mr.

Vice-President, really was to examine whether or not his statements were

disrespectful to the Presiding Officer who represents the institution. So while the

Privileges Committee is not a court of law, the Committee sought to follow the

procedures of natural justice through established guidelines provided either by the

Standing Orders or determined within the Committee as the Committee does have

the luxury to do.

What I want to say at the outset, Mr. Vice-President, is that once Members

are part of a body or an institution one must ascribe itself to the rules of that body.

The Senate has Standing Orders to guide the Members’ conduct and so if the

rulings of a Presiding Officer are not agreed with, there are avenues in the Standing

Orders to deal with issues via substantive Motions. There are several facts that I

must put on the record, Mr. Vice-President.

So, the Committee invited the Member—so we would have heard a lot so far,

but the Committee indeed did invite the Member on three occasions to present

himself before the Committee. All these invitations the Member did not turn up.

After the second Committee meeting—no, not the second Committee meeting,

after the second invitation was extended and the Member did not show up, what

41


Sen. Deonarine (cont’d)

UNREVISED

actually happened was that some members of the Committee actually wanted to

proceed with the proceedings at that point, and at that point I indicated to the

Committee that, you know, let us invite the Member one more time. And at that

point in time when I made that suggestion, the entire Committee agreed with that

suggestion and they also indicated that, yes, let us go ahead with that suggestion

but let us make it clear to the Member that when this invitation—this is going to be

the third and final invitation for him to present himself.

So on the first two occasions, Mr. Vice-President, the Member through his

legal counsel, who was communicating to us at that point in time, even though he

was advised that the legal counsel should not be communicating on his behalf,

pointed to actually threatening the Committee, indicating that the Committee was

violating COVID-19 Regulations even though the Parliament is clearly listed under

the Regulations, the COVID-19 Regulations as an exempted institution.

But, Mr. Vice-President, the Committee chose to focus on the mandate of the

Committee rather than get into the peripherals. As a matter of fact, Mr. Vice-

President, reference was made about Sen. Roberts’ medical condition only after we

communicated to Sen. Roberts that this is the third and final invitation for him to

present himself. It was only at that point in time that Member Roberts indicated his

desire, and he was actually “dying” according to Sen. Mark, to come and present

himself before the Committee. But the Committee did agree for a virtual meeting

because a lot of back and forth went on with that.

Member Roberts wanted to attend the meeting virtually from his home.

However, we did not agree for that, that is, for him to attend to the meeting from

his home. So it states clearly that what the Committee sought to say was that the

secrecy and the integrity of the proceedings would not be preserved if we allow the

Member to attend from his home virtually. So what the Committee sought to do

42



UNREVISED

was to explain to Member Roberts that we will abide by COVID-19 Regulations,

ensure that his health is being protected and offer a virtual medium via the

Parliament where we would put him in a separate room with his legal advisor or

whoever he chose his advisor to be to attend to the meeting virtually.

Now, I want to say something that in the very first meeting that the

Committee had, Sen. Mark alluded in that meeting with his very well-versed

experience in being in the shoes of a Presiding Officer before, he reminded all of

us and insisted on the secrecy of the proceedings and that all of us agreed to having

these meetings in person. If we agree to a virtual meeting from the Member’s

home, the Committee would have really set precedent for future matters that come

before the Privileges Committee. And that is something that the Committee was

strongly taking into consideration. Via virtual medium from home it was uncertain

who he would be engaging, who is engaging the Member, whether the proceedings

are being recorded, streamed live on some platform, on some social media

platform, there was no way we could have guaranteed the integrity of the

proceedings.

12.00 noon

With respect to the argument about Member Roberts was not able to present

a medical report indicating his condition, Mr. Vice-President, I honestly believed

that the burden was on Member Roberts to submit a medical certificate of such.

[Desk thumping] Anyone who says that they are sick should provide proof. Even if

you are in primary school, that is so. [Desk thumping] Here, we are in the

Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, and one is facing accusations of bringing the

Senate in disrepute and odium. He had legal representation. Is it really possible that

this just slipped past both Member Roberts and his legal representative? So what

was the Committee to do? What happens in such circumstances? Do we lose

43



UNREVISED

control over the integrity of the process? So that is why the Committee decided

that we will give him another chance and allow him to present himself in the

Parliament and make exceptional provisions to protect his health given his

concerns. In such circumstances, the Parliament Secretariat would have been in a

position to have control or to protect the Wi-Fi access, the stability of the Internet

access to prevent any disruptions.

In terms of Sen. Mark’s statement about we are not sure what emotion, what

state of mind Sen. Roberts was in after the ruling on that day that led him to make

the video and so on, if that was the case, Mr. Vice-President, when this third

invitation for Member Roberts to present himself in the Committee took place, he

was invited to submit written submissions, which he did. And if he was not in a

proper state of mind, Mr. Vice-President, then he would have had the opportunity

to state that in the written submission. And every Member of the House here today

has a copy of that written submission and nowhere in that written submission it

indicates that he was not in a proper state of mind.

So, Mr. Vice-President, just like a court of law, the Committee went ahead

to set out its guidelines. We agreed for a virtual hearing, but within the parameters

to preserve the integrity of the Committee’s proceedings, to be conducted within

the Parliament, in a separate room with his advisor, as he so choses, and nobody

else. He was given a number of opportunities to avail himself or put in a written

submission, which he did. What exactly else we were supposed to do? Do we

disregard the mandate that was given to us by the Senate and fold up our books and

go home? Or do we proceed with the Committee’s work and make a decision

considering that we had the evidence before us, the transcripts, his written

submission, which all were shared with the Member and he had opportunity to

review it, rebut it by written submission and also present himself on three

44



UNREVISED

occasions which he failed to do?

So it was under these circumstances, Mr. Vice-President, we decided to go

forward with the Committee’s work. And it was found that the evidence pointed

towards him implying that the Presiding Officer is biased, which called into

question her ability to apply rules and regulate proceedings of the Senate. And it

was found that these statements brought the Senate into odium and disrepute.

Every Member must—Mr. Vice-President, as I begin to wrap up because I

am being brief today. Every Member must respect an institution. Even if we do not

agree with the decision, we ought not to treat the Senate with disdain and

disrespect. The institution should not be ridiculed because it is a space where we

all contest ideas, put forward our views, speak on behalf of our area of expertise,

we give our viewpoints. We may disagree on ideas, on these viewpoints, or on our

opinions, but the institution is meant to be respected. People make mistakes and

sometimes we just need to take responsibility and move forward. As such, Mr.

Vice-President, I support the recommendations of the report for the Member to

present an unreserved apology.

Mr. Vice-President, l also want to say here that some members of the

Committee, at the outset, resorted to recommending an immediate suspension. And

I did put on the record that no way that that was the first recommendation that I

will be putting forward. So, Mr. Vice-President, as part of the institution that will

be inherited for years to come—and if we leave this institution broken, then that is

what it would be held to in years to come. I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk

thumping]

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Vieira.

Sen. Anthony Vieira: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Let me start off with the

following observations and declarations. First, between not wanting to get

45


Sen. Vieira (cont’d)

UNREVISED

embroiled in what might be seen as a battle between two political tribes and the

fact that I only got to see the Committee’s Report, over 121 pages, yesterday

evening, my initial position was to stay out of this debate. What changed my mind

is the belief that it might be useful to hear from a neutral and independent person

who was not a member of the Privileges Committee, someone who has no loyalty,

no connection nor infinity to either political party, whose only loyalty is to the

Parliament as an institution, and in turn, to the citizenry of Trinidad and Tobago.

Secondly, I regard Sen. Roberts as one of our most colourful, clever, and

eloquent speakers in this Parliament, which also means I have high expectations of

him as an influencer to be setting a good example where values like integrity,

respect, truth and justice are concerned. And these expectations are magnified

when one considers that both his parents and his siblings are reputable members of

the Bar. And he is not a newbie in Parliament, having served as a Member of

Parliament for some five years previously. So it cannot be said that he is not fully

au courant as to the rules of the House.

Thirdly, and notwithstanding how much one may admire, like or be

entertained by Sen. Roberts, the principles and values at stake in these proceedings

are bigger than him. They are bigger than his blogs and his talk shows. I deeply

believe that for Trinidad and Tobago to remain stable, its institutions must be

strong, viable and enduring. [Desk thumping] Parliament is a key institution which

we as Senators are duty-bound to protect, to sustain and develop, as well as the

environment that surrounds the institution. Because this concerns Parliament, the

institution, the principles at stake in these proceedings are bigger and they

transcend any political party.

Now, as Members of the Parliament, we are afforded many privileges and

immunities which allow us to perform our duties without interference from outside

46



UNREVISED

the House, including freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate

their own affairs. The corollary of these privileges and immunities is that those

matters subject to parliamentary privilege fall to be regulated by Parliament alone.

Parliament enjoys sole jurisdiction over all matters subject to parliamentary

privileges.

Now, in treating with the Motion against Sen. Roberts, and as was famously

noted by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, the

maxim underlying the law and custom of Parliament is that, and I quote:

“‘…whatever matter arises concerning either house of parliament, ought to

be examined, discussed and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and

not elsewhere.’”

Now, this is a cardinal point which needs to be emphasized, as based on the

communications annex to the report, Sen. Roberts and his attorney seem not to

fully appreciate. For example, it needed to be pointed out to them, by the

Committee, that while lawyers may accompany their clients when appearing before

parliamentary committees, the lawyer’s role is limited to that of an advisor, not as

a representative, not as an advocate. That under the separation of powers principle,

the Parliament’s absolute privilege attaches to those matters, which are subject to

Parliament’s sole jurisdiction or exclusive cognizance. And that while Parliament

is a court, its practices, rules and procedures are not the same as the courts run by

the Judiciary. Thus, demands for further and better particulars of the complaint and

submissions to the effect that the complaint is unsophisticated, it is vague,

unspecific and unfair, completely misses the mark.

In the book, Contempt of Parliament by Kieron Wood, which I found in the

library yesterday evening and I commend for everyone to read, there is an

interesting discussion at chapter three on how parliamentarians define “contempt”.

47



UNREVISED

The author having recognized that the definition of “contempt of Parliament” is

vague in the extreme, yet many legal experts are concerned that the definition of

“contempt” should not be too ridgid. Instead, they pointed out that contempt can

vary in gravity, ranging from minor breaches in decorum to serious attacks against

the authority of Parliament. Contempt can include any act or omission which has a

tendency, directly or indirectly, to obstruct or impede the House in the

performance of its functions, or Members or officers of the House in the discharge

of their duties.

Indeed, most of the cases of contempt in the Canadian Parliament relate to

challenges to the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament and its Members.

For example, when Brigette DePape held up a sign reading “Stop Harper” in front

of the Governor General David Johnston, it constituted the contempt of Parliament,

leading to her dismissal. Charges made by one Member about another, media

allegations about Members, or the premature disclosure of committee reports and

proceedings have also led to findings of contempt.

The term “contempt of Parliament” is much wider than breach of privilege

because it includes any offence against the dignity of the House or interference

with its process where no established privilege has previously existed. Thus, an

action may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the

offence. Contempts are, by their very nature, difficult to codify in an exhaustive

fashion. What constitutes contempt can often be appreciated only in light of the

circumstances of the moment. The bottom line here is that it is Parliament itself

that decides what constitutes contempt.

Now, turning now to the allegations against Sen. Roberts, which I

paraphrase as making satirical and off colour remarks against the President of the

Senate, suggesting that she was biased, not independent in her decision-making

48



UNREVISED

and generally reflecting negatively on her character and conduct. As you have

heard, Sen. Roberts was informed of the allegations against him and he was

repeatedly invited to appear before the Committee. And while he opted not to do

so, he did provide written submissions. In the event, the Committee was

constrained to deliberate without the benefit of being able to interact directly with

Sen. Roberts. And it is apparent from the Committee’s Report, and from what Sen.

Amrita Deonarine has stated just now, that pains were taken to ensure that the

principles of natural justice and procedural fairness were observed. There were no

disputed questions of fact. And here it may be useful to consider the approach of

trial in the absence of a defendant as summarized by Lord Justice Rose in R v

Hayward, a decision which was approved by the Privy Council in Taitt v the Royal

College of Veterinary Surgeons.

In summary, a defendant has, in general, a right to be present at his trial.

That right can with waived wholly or in part by the defendant himself. That right

may be wholly waived if knowing or having the means of knowledge as to when

and where his trial is to take place, he deliberately and voluntarily absent himself.

That right may be waived, wholly or in part, if during the course of the trial, the

defendant behaves in such a way as to obstruct the proper course of the

proceedings. The trial judge has a discretion as to whether a trial should take place

or continue in the absence of the defendant. The discretion must be exercised with

great care, and it is only in rare and in exceptional circumstances that it should be

exercised in favour of a trial taking place or continuing. But in exercising the

discretion, fairness to the defence, yes, is of prime importance, but fairness to the

prosecution must also be taken into account.

The judge must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including

the nature and circumstance of the defendant’s behaviour in absenting himself,

49



UNREVISED

whether his behaviour was deliberate, voluntary and as such, plainly waived his

rights to appear; the extent of the disadvantage to the defendant in not being able to

give his account of the events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against

him, the seriousness of the offence and the general public interest.

Now, for me, this last point has particular relevance as it requires us to

consider whether it would run counter to the public interest if a person could

frustrate the parliamentary or any other legal process by deliberately failing to

engage. If that was allowed to happen, well, nobody would ever appear before a

court. They just absent themselves and it will go away. To be frank, when I read

this report last night, I wondered if a tactic to delay was being used, a tactic to

delay until Parliament prorogued, [Desk thumping] at which point, the matter

would die. [Desk thumping] And if so, that will be an abuse of process.

Reflection against the character of the President or any other Presiding

Officer is a matter taken very seriously and rightly so. There is precedent that

where this occurs, it can be treated and punished as a contempt. The Committee

having scrutinized the evidence by video and having considered Sen. Roberts’

written submissions, agreed that a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament

had occurred, and that his statements and utterances had brought the Senate into

ridicule and odium. I agree with the findings of the Privileges Committee. This is

not a situation where the Opposition Senator is being silenced for uncovering

corruption or whistleblowing on an issue affecting national interest. This is about

Sen. Roberts “bussing ah mamaguy” on the President of the Senate in retaliation of

rebuke. He wanted to cast shade on the President of the Senate because he did not

like how she was moving. But you cannot do that.

When you are part of an institution, with rules you have sworn to uphold,

you are bound by those rules. They cannot be ignored and you just cannot cast

50



UNREVISED

shade on the President for doing her job, [Desk thumping] whether you agree with

her rulings or not. This is not the place for schoolboy heckling. [Desk thumping]

When you cast shade on the President, you attack the dignity of the House. [Desk

thumping] The Office of the President of the Senate is not an appropriate subject

for “picong”.

The Committee then deliberated on what sanction was appropriate, and

while it is not stated in the report, under parliamentary law and practice, in most

countries, several types of sanctions are available to the House when disciplining

Members for contempt. They include requiring the Member to apologize to the

House in person; censure; fines; non-participation—so in a non-participation

situation the Member gets to sit in the Chamber but he is not recognized—

suspension of the Member from the House for a period; expulsion, and even

imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the fact that Sen. Roberts is an experienced parliamentarian

who ought to have known better, who had been warned previously, and that even

though the reason given for his failing to attend meetings of the Privileges

Committee because he suffers from asthma and was fearful of contracting COVID,

the record will show that during the period between the occurrence of the

offending incident and the Committee’s final deliberation, Sen. Roberts attended a

number of Senate sittings [Desk thumping] and he participated virtually in a

number of Joint Select Committee meetings.

I agree with Sen. Rambharat that this is about bullying, harassment and

intimidation. [Desk thumping] I agree that if left unchecked, this can lead to a toxic

work culture in Parliament and outside. This is a clear example of what they are

now legislating in England for, what they call “online harms”. And yet,

notwithstanding all of this, it is instructive to note that the Committee recommends

51



UNREVISED

the softest of all the available options, specifically that Sen. Roberts issue an

apology to the President personally and to the Senate as a whole. Sen. Mark asked,

“What sanction?” What sanction? He is not being admonished. He is not being

reprimanded. He is not being suspended. Sen. Mark said, well, he would have liked

to have had the opportunity for Sen. Roberts to come and to—did you regret what

was said at that time? But here is his chance, come and say, I regret what I said at

the time. [Desk thumping]

Look, there are those who may criticize the Committee’s recommendations

as amounting to just a slap on the wrist, but I am comfortable with the

recommendation and I hope that Sen. Roberts will avail himself of the opportunity

being presented. Because you know what? It could have been a lot worse. He could

have been suspended, he could have been censured. An order for non-participation

could have been made. He is being treated very gently.

I look forward to my friend’s return to this Chamber and I hope he will take

the olive branch being extended. I hope the takeaway message coming out of this

unfortunate episode is that this is not a free-for-all. The Senate is not a marketplace

[Desk thumping] and those who sit in this honourable Chamber are expected to

display a level of dignity, decorum and respect, both on and off the field. [Desk

thumping] One cannot expect to engage in self-defeating behaviour without

consequence. I agree with Sen. Mark, this is not a kangaroo court. This is the

Upper House.

Now, I know that Sen. Roberts, like me, loves to read history. So, through

you, Mr. Vice-President, I would like to share some reflections on what befell

ancient Rome’s greatest orator, also Senator and, of course, I speak of Cicero.

Cicero’s opposition to Mark Antony, after the assassination of Julius Caesar was

vitriolic and condemnatory, leading ultimately to his own death on Mark Antony’s

52



UNREVISED

instructions. Mark Antony’s wife, Fulvia, took Cicero’s head, pulled out his tongue

and jabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin in final revenge against his power of

speech. While historians admit Cicero’s ability as an orator, some, like Michael

Parenti find him a vain, pompous, and hypercritical personality, who, when it

suited him, could show public support for popular causes that he privately

despised.

I hope nothing like that ever happens to Sen. Roberts. I hope nothing like

that can or will ever be said against my good friend. But he must bear mind that

there can be a downside, and as in the case of Cicero, sometimes even a terrible

price to pay for those who have the gift of the gab. As has been said, words have

power, one must use them wisely. Words have power, they can destroy and create.

Words have power, they have the ability to help, to hinder, to heal, to hurt, to

harm, to humiliate and to humble. There is a difference between speaking out and

speaking inappropriately. Mr. Vice-President I thank you. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Richards. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Paul Richards: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for recognizing me and

allowing me to join this debate on a Motion to adopt the Report of the Joint Select

Committee of Privileges. I have to admit, I had not intended to speak but it is said

that sometimes silence is consent. And if you do not speak, people do not get a

sense of what your thoughts are on what, in many instances, are very serious

situations.

12.30 p.m.

I want to start by going through one of my favourite books because I think

it is so applicable. It is by William Golding Lord of the Flies and I will read a

passage because I think it is appropriate and I quote:

“The central concern of Lord of the Flies is the conflict between two

53


Sen. Richards (cont’d)

UNREVISED

competing impulses that exist within all human beings: the instinct to live by

rules, act peacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the

group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires, act violently to

obtain supremacy over others, and enforce one’s will. This conflict might

be expressed in number of ways: civilization vs. savagery, order vs. chaos,

reason vs. impulse, law vs. anarchy…”—and—“the broader heading of”—

in some people’s estimation of—“good vs. evil. Throughout the novel,

Golding associates the instinct of civilization with good and the instinct of

savagery with evil. The conflict between the two instincts is the driving

force of the novel…”

Mr. Vice-President, we have the honour to serve in this honourable House,

either on the Government Bench, the Opposition Bench or on the Independent

Bench. Our presence in this honourable Chamber is a privilege hence the name the

Committee of Privileges because we are afforded several privileges to speak out on

behalf of several different groups and constituencies throughout Trinidad and

Tobago and in some instances, for the wider region.

Minister Rambharat spoke earlier about the two broadcasts which became

the center of this Committee’s enquiry and the impact those social media

broadcasts can have in their first iteration but also because it is social media and

presently the most pervasive form of media accessed by the global population, the

ability to live on in perpetuity.

Anil Roberts is a friend of mine. I will go on record as saying that. I have

known him for over 20 years and I have worked with him in different iterations,

two different media houses and now he is a colleague of mine and ours in this

Senate. So, I will declare that interest from the start. I have a lot of respect for Sen.

Roberts and Anil Roberts the person, Anil Roberts the intellect, Anil Roberts the

54



UNREVISED

orator. Anil Roberts is one of the best coaches in the western hemisphere. He is

extremely intelligent, extremely articulate and insightful. Anil Roberts is no fool.

Anil Roberts understands where he is in any particular realm or sector of his life.

And the Anil Roberts I know and the Sen. Roberts that we all know is someone

who has the ability to articulate himself in the most intellectual of manners.

So, when Sen. Mark indicates that well he may have been emotional because

of the occurrences in the Senate at the time, I could possibly accept that for one

broadcast. When it happens more than once, it is not a knee-jerk emotional

reaction. It has then entered the realm of a sustained activity. So I disagree with

any suggestion that it was not planned in that regard because someone may feel a

particular emotional response to an activity and jump on social media and even

that, we have to caution against accepting in the realm of someone who sits in this

honourable House.

You know, in any of the three Benches in this honourable House, we are

subject to the most intense, vitriolic, poisonous commentary from agents and

members of the public. But you know what? We signed up for that in some respect.

I do not condone it because I think it is an element of incivility that has entered the

public domain. But you know what? Inside of here and to each as colleagues, a

different behaviourial standard is expected of us and those standards are regulated

by the Standing Orders.

The honourable Chair has the remit and responsibility to regulate the

activities of this Chamber. In fact, the integrity and reputation of the Chair can be

considered to go even further than that because without bringing the Chair into the

debate in any substantive way, the Chair actually acts as the Head of State in some

instances. So there are implications for imputations about the integrity and

reputation of the Chair even in a wider context. The protections and defence of this

55



UNREVISED

institution is one that we must all uphold vigorously.

Mr. Vice-President, any Member of this honourable House and the other

place are subject, as I said before, to all kinds of attacks but while we are in here

and as we conduct our affairs outside of these hallowed halls, we must also protect

each other’s integrity because if we descend into that realm of seeming or being

perceived to attack each other and even more so, being allowed to attack each other

in an unchecked manner, then it is going to turn into a free for all because very

often, members of the public take their cues from us and that is a very important

consideration in this matter. We can all be accused from time to time—we are not

perfect; we are finite creatures—of falling short in our behaviour and our

administrations in our affairs in many different aspects. But you know what? We

can and must own those mistakes and seek to offer remedy in some form or

fashion.

I myself had the honour to sit on the Committee of Privileges in the Eleventh

Parliament so I am very au courant with how the proceedings go in the Committee

of Privileges. In that instance, there was one sitting with a former Member who

presented himself and the Committee contemplated, eventually an offer was made

for the Member to apologize sincerely and he did so and the Committee left it at

that. Even more recently, I raised a Motion in protection of one of the Members on

the Independent Bench because I thought that the Member’s reputation may have

been impacted negatively by utterances and again, an opportunity was presented

and the person who made the utterances simply apologized, commendably so and

that was the end of that at that point. And I think sometimes we misunderstand or

we underestimate the power of an apology and a sincere apology and contrition

when we have fallen short of expected behaviours.

If we do not address situations like this with a level of decisiveness and

56



UNREVISED

allow them to continue, what will happen is that we will be abdicating our

collective responsibility and what I consider our sacred duty to protect this

honourable institution of the Parliament and by the extension, the democracy of

Trinidad and Tobago. Now I think that is extremely important.

You know as a child, I, like many of us, I never aspired to or expected to be

blessed by God’s grace to be able to serve in this honourable House in the Eleventh

and now this, the Twelfth Parliament, and I would look at the proceedings from

our first Prime Minister Dr. Eric Williams through Prime Minister then Basdeo

Panday, Mr. Manning, Mr. Chambers as a child, a teenager growing up and

although there was strong disagreement on issues, there was always a level of

civility maintained and the public could look up to and in particular children, look

up to the Parliament and parliamentarians, with a level of respect and in many

instances, emulate their behaviors. We need to realize that children are looking on

and getting their modelling behaviours and getting their behaviourial cues from

their perceived leaders in the society.

What we allow to happen in this Parliament and in the other place quite

frankly, because sometimes, I myself look on in disdain at some of the exchanges,

we cannot then seek to chastise generations coming for their behaviours because

all they are doing is modelling us. In the same vein, if we do not stand up for what

is right, what is correct, even when Members fall short, go through a process, due

process, adjust engagement and seek to correct the behaviours and allow for

contrition, then what we are saying to the public and in particular children is that

behaviour is acceptable. You can go then to your classmate and treat him or her in

similar manner and then we descend into chaos and anarchy in society and that

cannot be allowed to continue.

To me, this is not a political debate. It is a debate on principle. [Desk

57



UNREVISED

thumping] Principle. And principle is irrefutable. We may have different opinions

and approaches as to how to go about getting to the point but right is right and

wrong is wrong. [Desk thumping] And we have to come to that sort of agreement

because the sanctity of this place, the sanctity of the Chair, must be protected. If it

is not, then we set a precedent from which we cannot return. Future events like that

will happen. They will descend and get worse and worse and then there will be no

respect for the office and the institution of the Parliament itself.

In conclusion, Mr. Vice-President, and looking at the recommendations, I,

like Sen. Vieira, have found that the recommendations contained in clause 49

including one:

“A. that Mr. Anil Roberts issue an unequivocal and unreserved apology

to the President of the Senate and to the Senate as a whole, at his next

appearance in the Senate during this Parliament;”

Which, well, I do not know if that is possible—well, in the next session possibly:

“B. that such apology is issued by way of a Personal Explanation

subsequent to the adopting of this Report; and

C. that a reminder of the Procedural Bulletin on the use of Electronic

Devices and Social Media, outlining guidelines for the conduct of

Members whilst in the Senate Chamber, be circulated to all

Members.”

I see nothing offensive about that. As a matter of fact, I think it is extremely

gracious and reasonable under the circumstances of the videos that I saw.

I also agree with Sen. Mark’s additional recommendations that possibly a

second perusal be done of the present Standing Orders and because we have

evolved so quickly into the age of the Internet and social media, possibly additions

or amendments be made in the interest of capturing a new paradigm that may not

58



UNREVISED

have been contemplated five years ago or even 10 years ago because the

technology is going to continue to evolve and we do not want to be always playing

catch-up because we know what can happen.

In conclusion, Mr. Vice-President, I also think that Sen Mark’s suggestion of

training for parliamentarians on what is expected of them is a commendable

recommendation and I, like my colleague Sen. Vieira, also approve and confirm

that I agree with the recommendations of the Report. I thank you. [Desk thumping]

The Minister in the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs (Sen.

The Hon. Renuka Sagramsingh-Sooklal): Mr. Vice-President, I thank you for

the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I rise today, Mr. Vice-President, not as

a member of the People’s National Movement, I rise today, Mr. Vice-President,

not even as a Member of the Government but I rise as a 38-year-old hard-working

Trinbagonian woman. I stand to contribute to this debate, Mr. Vice-President, as it

is my pledge and my promise to the young girls and women of this country that I

will “pepper” any man or any woman that facilitates, promotes and engages in

workplace bullying and harassment. [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President, no

woman, whether “ah PNM woman”, whether “ah UNC woman”, no woman should

have to work in fear of intimidation.

As a young woman in politics, 38 years old, I am no spring chicken but it is

relatively young, I expect as a young woman in this Chamber that you, my brothers

of this honourable Senate will protect me from personal attacks and intimidation.

And I am not talking about “picong” in politics. Now, entering into politics, I am

very much aware that “ah cyah pelt lash if ah cyah take lash” so I am not talking

about “picong” in politics but I am talking about personal attacks and personal

intimidation. That is another story altogether.

And I ask you, my brothers of this Senate, even those opposite, today you have a

59


Sen. The Hon. R. Sagramsingh-Sooklal (cont’d)

UNREVISED

responsibility—we have spoken about protecting women in this Senate against

sexual harassment, we have spoken about protecting the vulnerable in society.

Today, my brothers and sisters of this Senate, you have an opportunity to stand in

the defence of protecting the honourable President of this Senate from against such

attacks.

You know, Mr. Vice-President, I agree totally that if this matter is left

unchecked, we will create a toxic workplace for all of us, especially the women in

this honourable Senate. Now, I know all too well and I will speak from personal

experiences what a toxic workplace is eh. You would appreciate that as a young

female attorney at the Criminal Bar, the kind of lashing I would have experienced

entering into the courtroom which is perceived as a male territory, especially at the

Criminal Bar. Thank God I had a head of chamber known as Pamela Elder Senior

who used to always “tell meh put on yuh lipstick more red and go through and lash

them”. And because of that advice, I was never intimidated but I know there were

younger lawyers like me at that time who did not have that guidance and who did

not have the benefit of that Senior, that kind of Senior to guide them and I know of

the repercussions of being intimidated in a workplace.

Mr. Vice-President, when I entered into politics, it was no different. 2020,

on the campaign trail running for St. Augustine taught me so many things and I

will give some examples. I remember speaking about it on a platform, I was called

a disgrace to Indian people because I supported the PNM. Recently, I have seen

and I have my media—the people who help me with my social media, they are

always constantly cleaning up my comments that are made.

Because I have chosen to stand with the People’s National Movement and

because I am an Indian woman, the amount of times comments are made: “She

want ah black man”, “Is only black man she like”. Those are the comments that I

60



UNREVISED

will say, these are the comments that have been made. What does that have to do

with my decision? What does that have to do with my decision for choosing to

align myself with the People’s National Movement? Not too long, a derogatory

comment was made about “I came out of ah cupboard and the hon. Prime

Minister’s jockey shorts was on my head”. That was a comment that was made on

social media against me. Immediately, we removed the comment and then I

realized that I had to sift the comments that were made against me on social media.

So why I am very emotional about a topic like this is because in my very

short stint into politics, I have already experienced. I have experienced what that

social media bullying and intimidation can do to a young woman entering into

politics. Thank God, probably because of the God that I serve, the more the

comments come, “ah put on meh battle dress” every day and I show up for work

ready to serve the people of this country. But we have to recognize that there are

many women out there who are not in a position to do that and who will not be in a

position to do that. So the stand that we take today, as Sen. Richards said, it is also

a stand to show the public and the younger children looking on at us as role models

that right is right and wrong is wrong.

Mr. Vice-President, if I may now respectfully turn to the law. As a lawyer,

we are guided by certain rules and codes of conduct. For example, in the Legal

Profession Act, there is conduct and one of the rules in the Legal Profession Act

says, as:

“An Attorney-of-law appearing before the Court”—we—“shall at all

times be attired in such a manner as prescribed…”—to—“the

authorities…as”—the benefits and—“dignity of the Court.”—befit.

Now similarly, Mr. Vice-President, when I was sworn in as a Member of this

honourable Chamber, I took an oath which is entrenched in the Constitution and it

61



UNREVISED

states at section 12 which speaks to:

“Any person who holds an office to which this section applies as from

the appointed day, by virtue of having…the holder of any office before that

day, shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of the

Constitution or any other law in force in Trinidad and Tobago relating to the

taking of the oath with respect to that office.”

That Oath, Mr. Vice-President, which I took as a parliamentarian is a declaration to

our country to be loyal and fair and to act in the public interest. That is an oath that

every single Senator who sits in this honourable House took, and I am reminding

respectfully, the hon. Senators of this Chamber, I reminding you of the Oath that

we all took pursuant to the Constitution the day we accepted our appointment letter

to sit in this honourable place and our Oath is to be loyal and fair and to act in the

public interest and to that end, I am respectfully asking the Members of this

honourable Senate to adopt the Report made by the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Vice-President, my contribution certainly will not be long today but I

had the benefit of reading an article this morning and it is a meeting of the

Parliament dated the 12th of November, 2019, by the Scottish Parliament, and if I

may respectfully, through you, Mr. Vice-President, read what an excerpt of this

article said. It says:

“No one would disagree that intimidation experienced by

parliamentary candidates and others in public life has become a threat to the

diversity, integrity and vibrancy of representative democracy in the UK. We

know that women and ethnic minority candidates face the worse abuse.”—

ever.

And why this has resonated with me is because I have experienced it from the

campaign trail to now. Mr. Vice-President, this report goes on to say:

62



UNREVISED

“Indeed, we are seeing individuals being put off”—from—“entering”—

into—“public life, evidence of which the Committee on Standards in Public

Life found that during…”—this—“review. We are also seeing a flux of

female MPs leaving politics, announcing that they will not be standing in the

forthcoming general election and citing the daily abuse that they face in their

jobs.”

The committee went on to say:

“We know that we cannot sit back. Tackling intimidation is one way in

which the Scottish Parliament and other elected bodies in the UK can

empower more women to stand for election and to help to achieve equal

gender representation and diversity.”

So, what we must do today as a Parliament and I am even calling upon the

Opposition who can change their position this afternoon, especially my female

sisters of the Opposition Bench, this is a matter that we must stand together as one

and say no is no. [Desk thumping] I am calling upon my female sisters of the

Opposition Bench, join with us in one united voice and let us let those men know

that they cannot use the mere fact that they are “ah man” to intimidate us. Let us

make the point that we will not be silenced.

Mr. Vice-President, in this very said article, in an answer to the question on

social media abuse, this is the final statement I will read from this particular article.

It was stated and it was about social media abuse:

“We have to start with our own behaviour, call out those within our

own parties and lead by example in the standards that we set.”

This has also resonated with me and I stand without fear of contradiction, since I

have entered into this most honourable House, you will never find a media post,

you will never find a tweet or a comment coming from Sen. Renuka

63



UNREVISED

Sagramsingh-Sooklal degrading another woman and it is not because I am fearful

of the Opposition, it is not that I am fearful of the repercussions that I may face if I

made said comment but it is because I recognize and I am true to the saying “be

your sister’s keeper” and “what ah doh like fuh myself”, I should not like for

somebody else.

So to this end, Mr. Vice-President, as I said it is very, very short

contribution. I want to sincerely call upon the Members of this honourable

Senate—

Mr. Vice-President: Senator, before you end, just do me a favour and for the

Hansard records, identify the article, put some more identifiers. Either a title, date

so that the—

Sen. The Hon. R. Sagramsingh-Sooklal: Yes, Mr. Vice-President. The article

was “Intimidation in Public Life”, meeting of the Parliament, it is dated the 12th of

November, it was an article from the Scottish Parliament.

So to this end, Mr. Vice-President, I want to call upon the hon. Members of

this Senate to support the Privileges Committee Report. I certainly want to also say

as an attorney-at-law, I do agree with Sen. Vieira and I do agree with Sen.

Richards that the repercussions that the hon. Sen. Roberts would be facing is at the

lowest end of the scale. So to this end, I thank you. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Renuka Rambhajan: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. You know, standing

today to speak and at the time when I am standing to speak, the first female

Opposition Senator, after all that emotion in this House, I have to admit “ah feeling

the heat ah lil bit”. Because you see, hon. Members of this House, the volume of

persons’ contributions today alone indicates the emotion we are feeling but we

cannot be distracted from what we are debating. And there may have been extreme

generalizations and social commentary but they have absolutely nothing to do with

64


Sen. R. Rambhajan (cont’d)

UNREVISED

the debate.

Because the debate is whether this honourable House should adopt the

conclusions and recommendations of the Privileges Committee as stated in the

Report provided, which has a Minority Report for your consideration and numbers

132 pages. A quick word search of the 132 pages will show that the word “bully”

does not appear. The word “woman” or “women” does not appear. “Harassment”,

sexual or otherwise, does not appear. “Workplace” does not appear. But those

terms have inundated our debate. Why? Why are we shifting attention from what is

our purpose?

Our purpose is not to stand as judge, jury and executioner for the man who

sits in the seat I sit in today. Our purpose is to look at the Report with eyes

untroubled by prejudice, personal or otherwise. Whether we like or dislike Sen.

Roberts, whether we agree or we disagree, whether we find him offensive, whether

we like his style and see it as humour, that is not the discussion. The discussion is

whether or not the Committee’s Report is evidentially sound, procedurally correct

and the conclusion and recommendations reached are based in sound practice and

evidence principles.

And I am saying to you respectfully, Members of this House, yes it is highly

emotive. My sister Senator on the other side, Sen. Sagramsingh-Sooklal stood here

and gave personal account of the tribulation she has faced as a woman in politics

and I could stand and do the same and turn this House into a confession but I

would not.

1.00 p.m.

The same way I will not ask this honourable House to change its role and

function from the defender of the Constitution to the jailer of somebody who

exercises their constitutional right. Because we have to remember that even though

65



UNREVISED

we may not like what was said, how it was said, the cartoon, the graphics,

whatever it may be, the constitutional right is not to be abridged because it is

offensive. In as much as we may hear things we do not want to hear, the right to

say it exists. And there is no other place in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

where the right to freedom of expression, it is not even freedom of speech, hon.

Members. It is freedom of expression. Therefore, it covers any graphic

representation that may be used when a person is giving a message. So, yes, there

was reference to a kangaroo. And yes, there was reference to certain things. But

guess what? All of that is part of the constitutional right of freedom of expression.

So when we are debating today, respectfully, hon. Members, it is not

whether or not Sen. Roberts was right or wrong, whether or not it is he has

offended the House. It is whether or not we agree with the recommendation and

conclusion that his conduct brought the House into disrepute. So you are not to

make an assessment yourself. You are to determine whether or not you agree with

the assessment that is before you. And to determine whether or not you agree with

the assessment that is before you, you have to study the report. And you have to

judge in your mind, whether you are comfortable with what are, in our respectful

view, procedural defects.

When I started, I said that I did not know the tone and tenor I would be

taking. But I realize somehow, somewhere, while listening to my colleagues, that I

was doing a closing address to a jury. It almost seems that way. Because we are

hearing a great deal of his conduct, but not the contents of the report, and the

processes that should or ought to have been exercised to ensure fairness. So with

the greatest of respect, I would ask the hon. Members of this House not to be

distracted.

Respectfully, the view of this debate, the purpose of this debate, is whether

66



UNREVISED

we accept the conclusion, not whether he did it. In other words, to put it simply,

you are sitting as judges of an appeal court. A finding has been made by the

Committee and every single one of us, by virtue of our conscience, will determine

whether or not we accept the decision that was handed by the Committee, and that

is an individual decision to make.

But I would want you to consider the following factors: One, when we

consider this Report, we must consider it in the circumstances that existed at the

time. We cannot just brush aside and say Sen. Roberts did not want to attend.

There was a declaration of a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. It resulted in

specific regulations, passed by the honourable Parliament for the citizens to follow.

There were media conferences, where the Prime Minister stood up and said: “If

yuh doh have tuh go tuh work doh go. If yuh could find an alternative, find an

alternative.” And I know I will get plenty “roll eye and say dat ah splitting hairs”

but that is the purpose of debate. If it was “just fuh we tuh accept the conclusion,

my last day here today woulda be real short.” So, the arguments must be fair and

fearless and we must hear things we may not be willing to hear, like while we may

not agree with it, his right to say it is sacrosanct.

Now, I know that the declaration of the pandemic, and the hon. Attorney

General has referred to it throughout the debates I have been present in, that we

have had to find ways to find process and machinery, plant and equipment, plant

and equipment, process and machinery, to operate in a pandemic. So if it is we

have to find plant and machinery to operate in a pandemic and the Senator says: “I

cannot come because I have a serious asthma condition. My attorney of record has

a serious heart condition”, and—the hon. Attorney General is laughing, “wait tuh

see if yuh laugh when ah finish meh sentence.” When it is the honourable

Committee sent the letter to Sen. Roberts and said: “We have two rooms set up

67



UNREVISED

with audio equipment. You can come into the Parliament and sit in one room and

the other person would sit in the other.” I ask this question: “Where was the plant,

machinery and process for the AV conference to take place from Sen. Roberts’

house? Why was that not considered?” And to add to that question I ask this: “Why

it not in de report?”

Why is it that the only time, the only time, we got confirmation that the

Committee refused to accommodate a virtual hearing is when the hon. Sen.

Deonarine spoke this morning? Because I went through it. I do not see reference to

any consideration by the Committee, specific to Sen. Roberts’ request of attend

virtually.

So, we have to go to the history “because everybody focusing on the

exclamation point. Nobody focusing on the sentence.” Because when we look at

what happened, we have to look at the history, Sen. Roberts was referred to the

Committee on the 2nd of March, 2021, by the then Leader of Government Business.

A letter was sent to Sen. Roberts then. Yes, three invitations were issued for him to

appear and he did not appear. But it is not that he refused. He did not categorically

say I am not attending any hearing. And all of the appendices of the report, none of

them shows a flat refusal. What you see is him suggesting an alternative, which is:

I have these issues. May I please conduct this virtually?

And the parliamentary process, and those in power of the parliamentary

process and the Committee, took the opinion that they would not acquiesce to a

virtual hearing from his home but that arrangements were made in the Parliament

that he could avail himself of, to which he responded “that does not obviate my

concern”. Because his concern remained consistent. I cannot come to Parliament

because I suffer from this particular medical condition. And I am concerned, given

the numbers and the increase in numbers, that I am at risk. So do not say he

68



UNREVISED

refused, because he did not. In fact, the report uses the word “refuse” which, in my

respectful view, is incorrect at page 8. It says:

“In view of the foregoing and Mr. Roberts’ refusal to appear before the

Committee, the Committee agreed to continue with its deliberations, in his

absence, utilizing the evidence referred, Mr. Roberts’ submission…and all

of the relevant learnings.”

And that is what the Committee did. They made a preliminary assessment that Sen.

Roberts refused to attend, and that is the first incorrect statement in this report.

And it carries meaning. Because if, in your mind, you are of the view that a person

refuses, rather than a person is suggesting an alternative, you are negatively enticed

against that person. Because they are not doing what you want them to do.

So, we are saying there was no refusal. In fact, at the appendices, when you

look at page 114, you would see a one-line email from the Senator where he says:

“I stand ready to participate fully through a ZOOM meeting...”

And he actually capitalized the word “VIRTUALLY”. Where is the refusal?

“I stand ready…”

He submitted a written response. How did he refuse? Because you are saying, the

Committee is saying, we assessed what was said in his written submission. So then

he did not refuse.

And Sen. Vieira in his contribution spoke about particulars not being

required because this is not a court of law and we must be careful where we put our

standards of natural justice. With the greatest of respect to Sen. Vieira, who is

senior to me at the Bar, but I must say this: The concept of natural justice is not

limited to where you stand. It permeates your very being. It is a principle of law

that is natural to you. That is why we call it natural justice. So whether it is in

Parliament or the court, the right to be heard must be protected. The right to proper

69



UNREVISED

representation must be protected.

And in this report, a preliminary finding was made by the Committee that

there is a practice in this House that the legal representative is not to address the

Committee. So the Committee, you will see in the appendices, several emails from

the attorney to the Committee’s Secretary and every email starts with “though my

previous email was not acknowledged”. So there was no acknowledgment of Sen.

Roberts’ attorney, so much so that Sen. Roberts had to send an email to the

Secretariat saying I confirm and adopt the email of my attorney as my words. That

is the extent to which Sen. Roberts went to try and assist the Committee without

prejudicing his health.

When we look at the argument that particulars are not needed, perhaps, if

particulars were given, we would not be straying into sexual harassment, toxic

workplace, women’s rights. We would not be going there. Because if the

particulars were clear, it would read that a contempt has taken place and the terms

of the contempt would be specified. What were the words? Was it the entire

programme that was offensive? Was it the two episodes that were appended to as

transcripts? Because if that is the case I want to go to the transcript. And I would

like my friends to follow along, because this is a full closing address. Sen. Roberts,

in the transcript at page 56 of the report, 55 into 56. Mr. Anil Roberts:

“Now let us be clear, in politics on the hustings for elections, on social

media, banter, meetings, virtual reports, there is a place for picong, for jokes,

for serious things, to keep you entertained and get the message out. But

when you enter the hallowed halls of Parliament, when I dress up, bathe, put

on deodorant, put on suit and tie, prepare for hours on end, research, get

facts, read Bills and come to the Senate, I come there with a very serious

purpose.”

70



UNREVISED

That is in the same transcript that is being used to vilify Sen. Roberts. You hear

what he says? When he comes here, he is ready to do the people's work.

And I want to tell you what contempt is. Contempt is any action taken, either

by a Member of Parliament who obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the

performance of its functions or its members of staff, in the performance of their

duties. Has Sen. Roberts stopped the House from continuing, his action? Because,

and I hear Sen. Mitchell. This is the difference, the breach of privilege is the act.

The effect is the contempt. So the question is: Having found that there was a

breach in the Committee's Report, did it reach the standard or threshold to qualify

as a contempt?

So it is not about Sen. Roberts. It is about the evidence that the Committee

had before it. It is about the conclusions that they drew, and it is about the

procedures it adopted. Let us go back to the procedure. In the Report as well, “or

ah forget tuh read de most important part ah de transcript” that Sen. Roberts spoke

of. Page 57, the very first line.

“I cannot and will not bring anybody in the Senate into disrepute or in any

discussion.”

Same transcript, same show, same 90 minutes. “But we eh see dis part.” And like I

said at the start of my contribution, while we may disagree with the how, when or

why, we cannot disagree with the fact that he has that right.

There was also, in the consideration of the report, what in legal terminology

is called bad character, which is, if a person has done the act before, can you

consider that person's actions as a course of conduct? And where it is you are

considering previous conduct, the assessor or the tribunal must direct himself as to

what weight he is going to attach to that previous conduct. There is no evidence

that the Committee did that, respectfully. In fact, what is the bad character I speak

71



UNREVISED

of?

At paragraph 47 of the report, there is reference that in December 2020, Sen.

Roberts was warned about a social media post. So it means that the Committee was

considering his conduct in December of 2020. That is previous bad character. How

did the Committee deal with that? I went through the Minutes. It is not there. Just

like the Minutes not there where it is a vote was taken on whether to allow Sen.

Roberts to attend the hearing from his home.

When we looked further, Sen. Khan, as he then was Leader of Government

Business, who was the person to pilot this Motion, when he piloted this Motion

and you go through the Hansard, he said that the satirical subtext was used to show

that the President is biased towards him. This was the complaint. Two, and this is

very important, because this is the complaint. This is what started the report that

we are debating today. There is a dangerous pattern of conduct on the part of this

Member that threatens this institution of democracy.

So in the complaint, reference is made to a pattern of conduct. In the report,

previous conduct is considered. But Sen. Roberts was not granted the benefit of

putting that information contextually before the Committee. And that, obviously,

think about it, we are all human beings. If you hear somebody did something that

they are on trial for now, that they did it in the past or something similar to it, our

potential for believing that the person is guilty immediately increases. And that

may or may not have happened with the Committee. Can we trust the assessment

and the conclusion reached by the Committee, because we trust the procedures that

they adopted? Respectfully, I think not.

When we look at another procedural defect, and that is we spout this

argument that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. We say

it all the time. Lawyers love to say it. But have we ever really considered what it

72



UNREVISED

means? Think about it. Why would justice would have to be seen to be done if it is

done? If justice is done, we do not have to prove it was done. It was done.

And this is what Prof. Galligan, an author from the University of Oxford, on

a book called Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative

Procedures. This is what he said about that maxim.

The maxim only applies when the outcome is just. But why do appearances

matter if the reality is that justice has been done? The answer is to be found

in the practical nature of procedure and in the idea that we must have

confidence in them.

So, at the very base level of law being done and being seen to be done, is that

procedurally we must have confidence in what is being done.

As the earlier discussion shows, having confidence in procedures depends

not on our being sure, that they lead us to each case to the right outcomes.

Confidence depends instead on the procedures being of a kind, which we have

good reason to believe will produce the right results. We know what many of you

feel is the right result here. Many have been very vocal about it. The question is: Is

the result of the Committee procedurally sound, so that you can rely upon it and

adopt what has been said in the report?

Now, the funny thing is this, there is even inconsistency in the Report of the

Committee, because when Sen. Roberts raised his asthma condition, and he raised

it in an email on the 22nd of June, as late as that, this idea that he has asthma did not

carry—


Sen. R. Rambhajan: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. The email that said he had a

previous asthma condition did not carry as much weight as the fact that he had

been warned on December10, 2020. So what that says, is that you are picking and

73



UNREVISED

choosing what you are putting weight on, in your deliberation of the evidence.

And there was much said about the fact that Sen. Roberts absented himself.

He did not absent himself again. He offered an alternative that was not agreed to.

But when we look at this idea that he absented himself, it creates an impression

that is hard to shake and there was discussion this morning that the courts have the

ability to proceed in the absence of someone. They do. But they have certain things

they have to satisfy before, which Sen. Vieira spoke about. And one of them is that

the person is deliberately absenting himself. If he is deliberately absenting himself,

why raise his asthma condition? Just “doh” respond. Why send a written

submission? “Doh” respond. Why get an attorney to write Parliament three or four

times? Just “doh” respond.

And in fact, Sen. Deonarine, in response to Sen. Deonarine, when she says

that Sen. Roberts, the onus was on him to provide the medical, he who alleges

must prove. So if the other side put forward a Motion saying that he acted

contemptuously, then it is upon them to prove the contemptuous conduct. [Desk

thumping] Or, at least let us know what is the consideration of the Committee.

There was—yes, there was no request for Sen. Roberts for the medical.

Should that have been done? Should Sen. Roberts have been written to

unequivocally, where it is he was informed that having the virtual hearing in his

house was deemed not to be in accordance with the secrecy required in the

process? He never got that option. Because the Committee never wrote him and

said this is our finding on your request for a virtual hearing.

So again, can we rely upon the conclusion that was drawn? And I want to

go—I want to deal with some of the comments that Minister Rambharat said, and

that is when the debate started and Sen. Rambharat got up to speak, the fire and

brimstone he was hailing down upon us told me this debate going to be emotive.

74



UNREVISED

This debate going to be about distraction.

I see a lot of men in the Chamber, so I will take the liberty of using this

example. “You ever go home after yuh do something yuh not supposed tuh do and

yuh wife waiting on yuh? What de first thing yuh does do? Babes, good night.

How yuh going”? “Good night? Dis is de time yuh come home?” And what do you

say? Men and women, we all all do it. “Oh gor hun, yuh eh know if de car shut

down. Yuh eh know if ah geh ah flat tyre. You ain know if ah geh rob.” What you

doing? Are you not distracting her from the main question, which is: “Why yuh

come home late?” That is what is happening. We are being distracted about

women's issues. We are being distracted about sexual harassment in the workplace

and that we must stand in the protection of women. Well, I know that nobody on

this side signed any NDA. So when we are in glass houses, I will leave that there,

with respect. I see Sen. Mitchell “watchin meh and laughin”.

The point I am making is this: yes, all of these are valid statements and valid

issues, important issues that women must stand up on. But we do not stand in

isolation. This is the problem. We cannot pick and choose what standard or value

we accept. It is either you accept a specific value system, or you do not. And in this

case, the value system is whether or not you can accept the conclusion of the report

based on what is there. I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Jayanti Lutchmedial: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President, I

really had to wonder today whether, what we were here to debate, whether we

were here to debate a Report of the Committee of Privileges or whether we are

here to have a whole debate about women's rights.

I find it curious, almost hilarious that, and I will pick up where my colleague

left off, those in glass houses come here to “pelt so much ah big stone here today. I

did not see no fire. I did not no brimstone. I did not see no red lipstick, which I

75


Sen. J. Lutchmedial (cont’d)

UNREVISED

woulda like tuh see” when Members of the Government said that a yellow sari

being ripped off a woman is “ah little bit ah good fun”. I did not see nobody with

“dey red lipstick and dey fire and dey heat and de pepper. Dey did not bring all ah

dat”, when you have members of your party referring in the other place to websites

and Facebook pages and the same social media that is out there, to denigrate and

insult and characterize women in our party.

So I am glad that somebody raised the issue about Cicero because you know

what Cicero was known for, apart from being a very great orator, was how he used

to vacillate. He used to be politically convenient. And today we have come here to

be politically convenient and jump up on the issue of gender rights. Well, I will tell

you all one thing, everybody calling out on women on the Opposition, I “doh”

hide behind my skirt. I “doh” hide behind my skirt and make women's rights issues

where they do not exist. And let us focus this debate on what it is about.

This debate is about two things: do we have confidence in the conclusions

arrived at in this report, based on what were the considerations of the Committee

and whether the procedure followed by the Committee was the right procedure.

1.30 p.m.

Because we could stand here from now till thy kingdom come and talk about

women in politics and who— I know. I could commiserate with my friend about

entering into politics as a little bit younger woman and people telling you—you

want anybody to come and tell you about “choosing yuh man wisely and calling at

yuh, yuh engaging in jammetry”, and things like that. That is what I was told when

I was asked to serve in the Senate. Everybody asked me, “You sure you want to go

and deal with dem people?” So you know, as I said, glass houses. Let us remember

that here today.

Mr. Vice-President, there is a clear bias that comes out when you read this

76



UNREVISED

report. And you know, as my learned friend just indicated, we have taken into

account so much of the conduct of Sen. Roberts, his past, what people perceive to

be an infraction based on a social media report and him being warned. When I read

this report and I looked at the conclusions and the findings, it reminded me of two

things; two quotations that we hear from time to time. But you know, I will

paraphrase them, but one is that, “liberty is the right to tell people even things that

they do not want to hear”. And the other one is that “I do not have to like what you

say but I will defend your right to say it”.

So we all have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That is the

starting point here. And if it is we want to say that in exercising his rights to

freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Sen. Roberts has committed a

contempt, we must arrive at that conclusion via a fair procedure. What is a fair

procedure? What is natural justice? You know there is no definition in the world of

natural justice, because you just know what it is. You know it because you feel it, it

is intrinsic. It is something you just know whether it is fair or not. But there are

certain principles that we all accept. One, is the right to be heard; the right to

confront your accuser; the right to be represented. These are things that exist in all

aspects of our lives but particularly in our courts of law.

So I am shocked when I hear so many lawyers standing here today saying

things like, “Sen. Roberts refused to appear before the Committee.” He never

refused. And anyone reading this report could see that he never refused. He

proposed an alternative.

Now, what is required if you want to be procedurally fair when you are

dealing with a report or you are dealing with a hearing. If it is that the Committee

felt, as we have heard Members today who sat in the Committee to proffer

explanations and so on, that they did not think that Sen. Roberts’ request could be

77



UNREVISED

accommodated, there was an obligation on the Committee to communicate to Sen.

Roberts why his request could not be accommodated. What were the concerns?

You know, I stood here, and I heard Sen. Deonarine explain that they did not think

that—you did not know if he would broadcast it on social media, and whether the

proceedings would remain private and so on. Were all of these concerns adequately

communicated to Sen. Roberts, or was there just a blatant refusal? Where in this

report do we see the reasons being given to Sen. Roberts why his request for cross-

examination could not be accommodated?

I am not saying that I agree that he should be allowed to cross-examine the

President. But all I see in the Minutes of these meetings is a decision by a

committee saying that they did not think it was relevant. Why did they not think

so? Was that decision communicated to Sen. Roberts as to why they did not think

so? All of these things matter when we consider whether or not we have

confidence in the findings of this report and whether it should be adopted. Because

you see, people are entitled to reasons when a decision affects them. It is there in

our—every public official in this country can be asked to provide reasons in

relation to a decision that they make. And I do not think a Committee of Privileges

of the Parliament should be exempted from that.

In fact, a Committee of Privileges of this Parliament, Members of this

Parliament should be held to the absolute highest standards to justify their

decisions when they make them, especially when it affects the sanctions that could

be imposed upon another Member. So, was he given adequate reasons? It is not

reflected in this Report.

You know, when you look at history of the communication passing between

the Secretariat and Sen. Roberts and you look at the Minutes, it was decided at the

first meeting, a decision at the first meeting that in-person hearings would take

78



UNREVISED

place for evidence. That decision was taken without any input from Sen. Roberts.

And the fact that an Opposition Member is sitting in the Committee is of no

relevance whatsoever because Sen. Mark’s role there is not to represent Sen.

Roberts. Sen. Roberts should have been able to make representations on his own

accord as to the procedure to be adopted with the Committee.

We are functioning in a time where a person accused of a criminal offence

can sit and give evidence from his attorney’s office. We are in a time right now

where the rules made to deal with criminal trials allow a witness whose evidence

can convict a man of a criminal offence, can sit in a room without that person,

without the court, and log on to any cell phone and give evidence in a matter. But

you are telling me that the Parliament cannot accommodate a request by a Senator

to give evidence via a Zoom from his home? That in itself—and again it goes to

say, can anybody look at this Report and feel that the Committee was fair to Sen.

Roberts in the way that they dealt with his request?

Apart from the absence of proper reasons being given to him, is it really a

reasonable refusal? If he says—and he is not just refusing for absolutely no reason.

He gave a reason and I respectfully do not think that the absence of him producing

a medical is enough to say that the reason was not good enough. Did the

Committee ask him to produce a medical to substantiate his claim? Would that not

be expected from a committee that has respect for procedure and wants to appear

fair, and unbiased, and just in its deliberations?

If you had doubts in your mind— and I have heard it here today. I have

heard so many assumptions here today. People saying that “Well, it seemed that he

was just trying to delay.” If that was the view of the Committee that Sen. Roberts

was not being honest and truthful, or that his medical concern for presenting

himself to the Parliament building and coming out of his home was not a legitimate

79



UNREVISED

reason, well then they should have asked for the medical. They should not now

come and say well there was no medical presented and therefore they just did not

accept it. The responsibility is on the Committee. You “bring him dey”.

And I heard that so many times you know when we go to court sometimes

and the prosecution is for, you know, saying things about the defendant and the

defendant said something and the prosecutor says, “Well, he did not really prove it

you know.” And magistrates and judges and everybody, they said, “Listen, he

didn’t come here yuh know, you bring him here.” And therefore, you must bring

your evidence, you must ask your questions. You must follow the fair procedure.

There is absolutely no burden on a defendant in a criminal matter in any court to

discharge any burden. It is on the persons who allege, and it is on the people who

have brought him there. [Desk thumping]

The only rights and responsibility that Sen. Roberts had before this

Committee was to proffer an explanation and to face his accusers, and he also has,

and I say it again, there is no definition of natural justice. You know what is

because you feel it. And you cannot say that based on some practice that people are

not allowed to have a legal advisor speak for them, that that is justice in this

circumstance.

If Sen. Roberts wanted to have an advisor and that was a request that could

not be entertained, again, there was a responsibility on the Committee to give

adequate reasons as to why that request could not be accommodated. And it cannot

be based simply on practice, that that is the practice here today. There may have

been some special reason. We do not know. But the responsibility is on the

Committee to enquire as to why it is Sen. Roberts felt the need to have a legal

advisor maybe communicate on his behalf.

I looked at this Report and I saw the correspondence coming from—you

80



UNREVISED

know, my colleague, another attorney, representing Sen. Roberts and it is almost

complete— I mean, it is like well the Committee decided we are not listening to

any lawyer, so we are not even going to respond. I find that so—you know, just

unprofessional. I find it very, you know, it absolutely goes against the grain of

fairness. It does not engender any type of confidence in the fairness of this entire

process and procedure.

So, Mr. Vice-President, let us look at what we are here to really debate. We

are not here to decide and to debate whether or not we like Anil Roberts, you

know, whether or not we like what he had to say, whether we like his behaviour

now or in December. Did this Committee fairly deliberate upon the matters? Well,

we know that they took into account some irrelevant considerations such as his

previous social media posts. We know for a fact that the Committee might have—

again, I have heard it here today being said by some of the same people who sat on

the Committee. You talking about the reach of Sen. Roberts’ social media post.

“You vex dat Anil Nandlall, the Attorney General of Guyana does watch douglAR

politics. Is that a consideration in this Committee’s conclusion and finding? That

Anil has an audience of 6,000 people? I do not know. But is that relevant?

[Laughter] Is that relevant?

Hon. Senator: And growing.

Sen. J. Lutchmedial: And growing—because “allyuh cyah get 300 people tuh

watch de PNM Facebook page when all yuh have things? Dais why all yuh vex?” I

mean, come on, that is borderline ridiculous that because some—you know in the

region criticized the Prime Minister of the country by referring to what Sen.

Roberts had to say on his show, that is a consideration that Members of this

Committee have come here to talk about today.

So, you know, can you feel that this Committee sat and fairly deliberated on

81



UNREVISED

the matters? Sen. Rambhajan did a very good job at going through the transcript of

these proceedings and all of the things that Sen. Roberts had to say on the show.

And yes, there was satire and there was skits, and images or whatever. To be quite

frank I “doh” watch douglAR politics. “I am de first one. I will admit dat. I doh

watch it, is not really my thing.” And as I said, “I doh have tuh like your style and I

doh have tuh like what you have to say”. But I still believe that people have the

right to say things and that, you know, you cannot be constrained unfairly to say it.

But I read the transcript and I see that, you know—Sen. Roberts went to,

you know—through great lengths to go through the Standing Orders and why he

felt that his ejection from the House here—from the Senate—was not fair. “Which

Standing Order did I breach?” So and so and so. He talked about it. He went

through all of it. Where are all of those things and all of these components of this

transcript taken into account? Or are we just looking at the skit and the image and

the kangaroo and things like that?

Now, you can be offended, you know. You could be properly and rightly

offended by the methods used by Sen. Roberts, but that does not make it contempt.

That does not mean—because you could be more— I am very much offended by

many things as I hear coming from the other side, in here and in the other place,

very offended. Up to yesterday I was offended when my colleague sat here trying

to make a contribution on a very serious Bill and what was coming from the other

side. I am very offended all the time. Is it contempt? No. No, it is not. It does not

reach that standard.

So, the conclusion that Sen. Roberts doing something that “yuh doh like”.

Because you find because you find people in Guyana watching it and talking about

it. Because you find “he too popular”. Because you find he too loud. I have seen—

you know we talk there has been many, many worse things said and done in the

82



UNREVISED

political arena than what Sen. Roberts did. And I make no apologies for saying

that. I am not saying what he did was right. I am not saying that it was, you know,

that I—it is in my taste or that I would do it myself. But I do not think that persons

who simply do not like someone has to say should be allowed to say that it rise to

the level of contempt.

You know the first thing that is written here in the chapter on contempt in

the Erskine May, our bible here, really says that it must:

“…obstructs or impedes…”—the—“…House of Parliament in the

performance of its functions...”

I do not believe that the conclusion that what Sen. Roberts did rises to the

level of contempt can be sustained by anything in this report. It is not a sound

conclusion for two reasons. It is not supported by the evidence and the procedure

adopted was flawed in many respects. And I am yet to see in this Report or to hear

from anyone here how Sen. Roberts’ conduct, as distasteful as you might find it,

how it has impeded this House from doing its work? How it has impeded this

House from discharging its functions?

You are talking about bullying and “yuh” bullying woman and discouraging

women from coming into politics and all of that. That is so farfetched, it is

farfetched, and it is, it is—can I dare say hypocritical for anybody on that side?

[Desk thumping] Hypocritical for anybody on that side who supports the

misogynist in chief to come here and say that everybody—

Sen. Mitchell: Mr. Vice-President, 42(6).

Sen. J. Lutchmedial: I withdraw. I withdraw, Mr. Vice-President, and I will—

Mr. Vice-President: Okay, okay, okay. All right, so point of order raised, Member

withdrew. Continue.

Sen. J. Lutchmedial: But it is hypocritical for them to come and stand here and

83



UNREVISED

make this debate about the gender issues and bullying and talk about what—

Hon. Senator: Smokescreen.

Sen. J. Lutchmedial: Yes, trying to distract—distracting from the point this report

is not sound and ought not to be accepted. [Desk thumping] That is what they are

trying to create here. Because somebody needs a headline tomorrow in the

newspaper to say, “Anil Roberts is a—yuh know, ting, and women, and women in

politics and where it is.” Where are the women’s voices when we victim-blame

people who are victims of domestic violence and say, “Choose yuh man wisely?”

Where “de red lipstick and de fire and de pepper” then? I “doh hear dem.” [Desk

thumping] “I doh hear dem when dey tell ah journalist come leh we go ha’ some

drinks. I doh hear dem. I doh hear nothing from dem then.” But you come here

today to turn a cartoon and a commentary and Sen. Roberts’ rights to freedom of

speech into a gender issue. [Desk thumping]

As I said, I do not support bringing the House into disrepute. I do not

support, I do not support any person being in contempt of this Parliament. But you

know what I do not support? I do not support when you trivialize real issues, real

gender issues of sexual harassment like the women who had to sign the NDA on

the basis of your Government’s decision. You trivialize those kinds of issues when

you—

Sen. Mitchell: On a point of order, 46—on a point of order, 46(1). [Interruption]

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Mark, please allow, please allow—

Hon. Senator: What Standing Order?

Mr. Vice-President: Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, point of order?

Sen. Mitchell: 46(1) please. An NDA is irrelevant to this. We are debating the

Report.

Mr. Vice-President: Okay. I have it, I have it. [Crosstalk] Okay. So let me rule.

84



UNREVISED

Member, as you are contributing you have made that point repeatedly, so I would

invite you now to move on.

Sen. J. Lutchmedial: Mr. Vice-President, [Desk thumping] this debate opened

with the fact that this is a gender issue about bullying and I am simply saying you

cannot trivialize gender issues by making everything about gender. You cannot

trivialize legitimate issues of sexual harassment in the workplace. [Interruption]

Yes, using—using conveniently talking about sexual harassment in a workplace to

hide and to duck and to distract from the fact that report is not procedurally sound

[Desk thumping] and the evidence upon which the findings are made were not—it

contains several irrelevant considerations, assumptions, and conclusions drawn

without a proper evidential basis and without a proper enquiry.

Those are all my contributions today, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping].

Mr. Vice-President: Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (Sen. The Hon. Randall

Mitchell): Thank you Mr. Vice-President. Mr. Vice-President, I have to start off

by expressing how very disappointed I am in Sen. Lutchmedial [Desk thumping]

and in Sen. Rambhajan’s contributions, and in their support of the behaviour of

their colleague.

And to the unlearned observer, Mr. Vice-President, what Sen. Lutchmedial

and Sen. Rambhajan did was to conflate a number of issues to the confusion of

everybody else. Conflating the principles of natural justice with the principles of

administrative justice. Conflating the principles of procedural fairness and

procedures that are adopted in a criminal court. And there is just one section, one

section in the Constitution that would eliminate and destroy their 30 and 20

minutes together.

One, and it is in the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,

85


Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell (cont’d)

UNREVISED

the Constitution that we all swore to uphold. The Constitution, Mr. Vice-President,

that was created in this very place that we now stand here today to defend.

Sen. Lutchmedial conflated, as well as Sen. Rambhajan, the freedom of

expression as an enshrined right under section 4 of the Constitution. They did not

say that that freedom of expression was unfettered because, of course, you do not

have the freedom under our laws of defamation for slander and libel. But Sen.

Rambhajan went on to say that the freedom of expression is sacrosanct. He should

have the right to freely express himself in any which way.

But of course, Mr. Vice-President, we all go to section 55 of the Constitution

which provides for the privileges and immunities of the Parliament, and I should

read:

“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing

orders regulating the procedure of the Senate and House of Representatives,

there shall be freedom of speech in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Subject to the…rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the

Senate and House of Representatives, there shall be freedom of speech.”

But in section 56 goes on to grant a further privilege to this Parliament:

“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House may regulate its

own procedures.”

I would forgive Sen. Rambhajan. Sen. Rambhajan is new. Perhaps she has

not yet entered into a course of study in terms of the rights, the powers, and the

immunities of this Parliament and the way that the Constitution interacts with the

Standing Orders that govern and guide our affairs in this place.

I would also forgive Sen. Lutchmedial, even though Sen. Lutchmedial has

been in a number of constitutional motions and constitutional matters. But she is

new to this place, so we forgive her. But that and that alone, Mr. Vice-President,

86



UNREVISED

eliminates any argument that they have just made.

Mr. Vice-President, you know, my first awareness of this place happened

around Standard 1, when I was in Standard 1. You know in primary school, Mr.

Vice-President, your teacher would usually give you a little cut-out of the

Parliament, and you have to go home and colour it in red, or you have to cut out,

you know, in the newspaper a picture of the Parliament and put it in your book,

and then they tell you about this Red House. And the Red House is the seat of

democracy. And as little children you did not really understand what that meant,

“the seat of democracy”. But one thing we understand, understood at that time, Mr.

Vice-President, was you see that Red House, that red building, that was a place to

revere and to respect. [Desk thumping]

And of course later on in life you came to understand what “the seat of

democracy” really meant. And we came to understand the importance of this place.

And I attach myself to Members on the Independent Bench who contributed and as

well as Members of my Bench who contributed, in terms of the incredible

importance of this institution as an arm of State to the citizens of Trinidad and

Tobago. This is the Legislature. People here are elected or people here are

appointed to serve and to do the business of the people.

I mean, Sen. Vieira, I do not belong to a political tribe. I would not describe

it in that way. I belong to a proud political party of 65 years, [Desk thumping] a

proud political party that is responsible for building this country. [Desk thumping]

And we have a lot of the important debates in this place. We debate the

Appropriation Bill and Members on both sides, Members are allowed to scrutinize

policies of the Government, scrutinize the budgetary arrangements. In this House

we also approve the appointment of a police commissioner. Just Monday we were

discussing the process of approving the police commissioner, the person who is in

87



UNREVISED

charge of protecting and serving citizens of this country.

We create in this place far reaching laws that affect the people’s rights to

liberty and people’s rights to property. We create criminal offences; we create

criminal sanctions. This is a very, very, very serious place and as somebody who is

learned and understanding the privileges, rights, and immunities of this Parliament,

listening to Sen. Rambhajan and Sen. Lutchmedial defending the indefensible is

almost funny, but it really is not funny, Mr. Vice-President. It is tragic. It is not

funny.

You see, Mr. Vice-President, people must have confidence in this institution

for the social contract to work. We must have—We are here to do the business of

the people and the people must have confidence in this institution. We must be

unfettered in our right here to do that work. And I just spoke about the section 55

that creates the rights and immunities. And we are treated—in this place we are

granted rights above what is guaranteed to the ordinary citizen in the street. We are

given additional rights and immunities and privileges in this place. And one of

them is the freedom of speech. Inside this place, not in a studio somewhere, inside

this place you are encouraged through the freedom of speech to speak frankly and

attack your points, and your policy positions robustly without fear. And for that

you are given that privilege and that immunity from arrest and from prosecution, et

cetera, for words uttered.

The House itself is also given certain privileges and powers. And one of the

most important privileges is the right to regulate its own affairs. And within that

right is the right to discipline Members where their conduct falls below the

standard required of this place.

Mr. Vice-President, so you have heard a number of the Independent

Members speak, and you have heard members on this side speak, and one thing we

88



UNREVISED

have in common, and one thing we are clear about, is that we must hold this place

in very high esteem, and we must uphold the dignity of this Senate.

And Sen. Sagramsingh-Sooklal spoke about the Oath, the Oath of

Allegiance, and implied in that Oath is that we must uphold the dignity. Because

an attack on this very institution is an attack on the very democracy that we have

sworn to uphold. This “eh” no joke.

2.00 p.m.

You see, Mr. Vice-President, there has been a very dangerous trend

occurring. And there are members in society, high-ranking members, members,

leaders of political parties, leaders of political parties, who feel as short-sighted as

they are—and that is putting it mildly. If we were not to put it mildly, we would

say they are unpatriotic and evil. But there are leaders who believe in attacking and

undermining institutions because to do so, would further their own aims and

ambitions. We have seen it recently with the NIB, where they attacked that very

important institution, that important institution in our State. We have seen it

recently. And every single time the United National Congress loses an election

they attack the Elections and Boundaries Commission.

Sen. Lyder: Standing Order, Mr. Vice-President, 46(1). How is this relevant to the

debate?

Mr. Vice-President: Okay. So, Minister, as you are making the point in relation to

the sanctity of the institution, I would ask you to bring it in tightly, and make sure

you get to the report as quickly as possible.

Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, and I am

guided. But every time there is an attack on the Elections and Boundaries

Commission, a very, very important institution in this country that springs from the

Constitution in the same way that this Parliament springs from our foundational

89



UNREVISED

law, there is a sanctity. And, Mr. Vice-President, the Elections and Boundaries

Commission is one of our most outstanding institutions. But I would tie it back for

Sen. Lyder, to say that in the Constitution, in the Constitution, we have the right

and power to regulate our own affairs, unlike the EBC and to hold Members whose

conduct falls below the dignity of this Parliament, to hold them accountable for

that. Section 55 gives us that power and that is what we have done.

This matter about procedural fairness, of course, I told you, they tried to

conflate natural justice and right to face your accuser and what goes on in court

and the burden on a balance of probabilities versus the criminal—I mean, they try

to confuse everybody. And, in particular, Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark has 30 years’

experience. Sen. Mark has been the chairman of several privileges committees and

Sen. Mark knows better. So, what they are speaking about, Mr. Vice-President, in

terms of these administrative justice, and procedural fairness, is the procedures that

are used by a decision-making body when arriving at a decision. And where that

decision impacts someone negatively, those procedures must be fair. And we

understand that. We understand that as Members of the Committee, the Secretariat

understood that and elements of procedural fairness are all over the Report.

So, this thing about procedural fairness, it involves three rules. The hearings

rule, the bias rule, and the evidence rule. In terms of the hearings rule, it means that

you must have the right to be heard. You must be given notice of all the matters

complained about, you must be given all the relevant evidence referred to the

Committee for investigation and report. You must be given all those things and

you must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Mr. Vice-President, on March the 18th, first letter to Mr. Anil Roberts:

“…a question of privilege was raised against you…”

90



UNREVISED

—he was told in the letter, it was referred to the Committee at caption for

investigation and report. The allegations state that in two episodes and it went on to

say what happened in those two episodes, and what was referred to the Committee

on March the 2nd. It attached both transcripts of the broadcast done by Mr. Anil

Roberts, douglAR politics, on February the 23rd and February the 26th. It went on to

say:

“the Committee has commenced his investigation…

…during the course of its investigation…the Committee will invite you

to appear;

that when invited to appear, consistent with practice and Standing Order

102(16)… you may:

make a written submission in addition to appearing and;”—you

may—

“be accompanied by an advisor who may be an Attorney-at-law, and

may consult with that Advisor…”

That is in our Standing Orders.

The Constitution says in section 55 that this, we may regulate our own

procedure by Standing Orders. And in Standing Order 102 it speaks and it tells you

about Members of Parliament as witnesses, advisors to witnesses, et cetera. So, he

was made aware, as Members said, he was invited not once, not twice but on three

occasions. And Sen. Vieira said something that is extremely important. He refused

to attend on the first occasion, on the first occasion. He said he is not attending,

COVID, all of that. But the date for his appearance on the first occasion was on the

23rd of April. He said COVID-19 Public Health Regulations, he is not attending, he

is going to break the law, he is not attending. But, Mr. Vice-President, on Tuesday

27th of April, 2021, days after he failed to appear, saying—citing the COVID-19

91



UNREVISED

Regulations, on the 27th do you know, Mr. Vice-President, that he attended a sitting

of the Parliament? He could not appear with a few people in a room, with all the

COVID-19 protocols in place, he refused to appear there. But he attended days

later in the Parliament, participating fully in the proceedings of the Senate.

Later on, Mr. Vice-President, Tuesday 15th of June, his first reason for

refusing to attend, his reason was broadly, COVID-19 Regulations, even though

the regulations allowed for the meetings of Parliament, Sittings and Committees, et

cetera, failed. It was only on Tuesday the 15th of June, 2021, that he started to

make the excuse of illness. And he submitted in writing that he has asthma. And

his doctor told him that if he comes, he may get COVID, and it may exacerbate.

But, Mr. Vice-President, out of deference for the Committee, I would hope

that if that was a fact that he intended to assert or that he asserted, he would

condescend to prove that fact. If your doctor says that you have a precondition that

is asthma, well, okay, get a doctor to write, making that excuse that he has a

precondition with asthma, and that that precondition makes it very dangerous for

him to attend. He never did that. And, Mr. Vice-President, I respectfully submit

that he knew he had to do that but what I really believe happened and this is a

matter of opinion, what I really believe happened is no doctor was willing to

participate in any fraud. No doctor would do that. And, Mr. Vice-President, even

worse, while the Member is absent and away from this Senate, using the excuse of

illness, and while he absented himself away from the Committee, using the excuse

of illness, the Member is almost every day, in a studio in San Fernando, with some

man named Archie and Jughead and whoever else, doing douglAR politics every

single day, every single day. [Interruption] No, but I know it is above a bar. I know

your headquarters is above a bar. [Crosstalk] But Mr.—I will get back to you.

92



UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President: Members, Members, please. Just, just—Sen. Lyder, Minister

of Tourism. There is a debate taking place and is not just between the two of you.

So Minister of Tourism, continue your contribution. Sen. Lyder, allow the Member

to make his contribution.

Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell: How much more time do I have?

Mr. Vice-President: You finish at 2.19.

Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell: I have to hurry. I have to hurry.

Sen. Lyder: Go back to the bar. [Laughter]

Sen. The Hon. R. Mitchell: So, Mr. Vice-President, let me quickly go to the bias,

okay. So with respect to the—well, let me deal with the evidence rule. We had two

transcripts, two recordings before us and those were submitted. The evidence was

real, the evidence was reliable and undisputed. So, Mr. Vice-President, that was

satisfied. With respect to bias, and I want to quickly go to bias. Sen. Rambhajan

spoke about bias and the appearance of—I mean, Mr. Vice-President, “I know dey

were coming to lawyer down de ting, yuh know”. “De ting very, very simple, yuh

know.” I sat in another debate and, Mr. Vice-President, there is a constitutional

book by a man called Hilaire Barnett. And in that debate, it is almost as though

they pelt the whole constitutional book on you, you know? And I know they are

coming to lawyer down the thing, talking about all sorts of strange, abstract

concepts. But, Mr. Vice-President, in terms of bias, it is very interesting. An

allegation of bias was made against me by Sen. Mark, and he asked me to recuse

myself and I refused. It is recorded in the Minutes of the first meeting at 4.7, 4.8

and 4.9. I refused. He alleged bias because he felt as though I was very robust in

my contributions in the Senate, and I raised the matter of LifeSport too many

times.

93



UNREVISED

But I made an allegation of bias because you see, Sen. Mark stands there,

holier than thou, and accuses persons of prejudging and being biased in the whole

proceedings. I accused Sen. Mark of being biased and I asked him to recuse

himself, and he refused. I was asked to submit written submissions making the case

of bias against Sen. Mark and I did not because I knew I would have the

opportunity here to make that case of bias. Sen. Mark was accused in that

Committee of being in a conflict of interest. And in prejudging the deliberations

and the recommendations of the Committee and therefore, of being biased.

Mr. Vice-President, I have to report to you. The matter was referred to the

Committee on March the 2nd. Committee sat at its first meeting and deliberated.

And Mr. Vice-President, do you know or I may have to remind you, that during the

currency of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, Sen. Mark, in his own

name, filed a Motion of no confidence in the President of the Senate? Alleging in

his recitals partisanship on the part of the Senate President during the currency, and

it was the alertness of Sen. Rambharat who picked up on it. And dangerously, if

that Motion was allowed to go forward, it would have conflicted everybody on that

Committee and everybody in this Senate. Sleight of hand or not, thankfully, to Sen.

Mark’s credit, he gave an undertaking not to debate that Motion.

So, Sen. Mark stands here and talks about bias but he is the one who was

biased. Mr. Vice-President, I have to hurry. But I will say that the test for contempt

of Parliament is very clear. As a Committee, we determined whether the thing was

in fact said. And in fact, the thing was said, that is not in dispute. We had to then

determine what was said, whether it reflected on the President of the Senate and on

the President of the House. We determined having regard to the thing said, that it

did in fact reflect on the President of the Senate and the House in a way that would

lower the esteem of the President of the Senate and the President of the House

94



UNREVISED

when considered by ordinary Members. And I did not have time to go through

everything but I will certainly try to go through a little.

Nobody went through the transcript to say exactly what was said, so, let me

go through it. Here is what he said on the 23rd of February:

“On planet Senatah, a leader was displaced, then replaced, and at the last

minute returned to be the leader of the Senatah.”

“Senatah” is the Senate.

“The leader’s name was Headmistress Kangaroo.”

“Kangaroo” refers to the President of the Senate, Kangaloo. And to help us along,

they put a kangaroo and then they put the picture of the President of the Senate, so

we are very clear.

“Senatah had rules called Sitting Orders.”

Well, those are the Standing Orders.

“Headmistress Kangaroo, oversaw weekly meetings of the Kangaroo Court.”

The “Kangaroo Court”. These sittings are a kangaroo court.

“She would pick on him, interrupt him, shout at him like a deranged school

teacher…”

That is what he did. And, Mr. Vice-President, I see that you are on your feet but I

support this Motion fully. I would say that I was one of the persons who

recommended harsher penalties. I believe there should be harsher penalties but I

have accepted what the Report said— [Inaudible] [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President: Thank you, Senator—thank you, Minister of Tourism, time is

up. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Damien Lyder: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. And, Mr. Vice-President, in

listening to Sen. Sagramsingh-Sooklal open up the debate to speak about women

and the fact that they should not be bullied and intimidated, I want to say that I

95


Sen. Lyder (cont’d)

UNREVISED

completely agree with her. They really should not. And you know, it reminds me,

Mr. Vice-President, when I hear the goodly Senator say that, it reminds me of the

type of bullying and intimidation that I see going on in another place, Mr. Vice-

President. And not just inside that other place, but also on platforms, on podiums,

on YouTube. When you hear comments, like “she could bark at meh dog, but I go

ignore she cyat”, how does one interpret that? Is that not bullying? Bullying your

colleague that you may sit opposite from. And there are so many other stories, but I

will not go into that. I will not waste my time with that. But I want to say that I

agree with the Senator. I would agree totally with the Senator. And that the Senator

should also look on her side and see if that is being perpetrated on her side. And

have the courage as a young professional lady, to stand up and speak up against

those who may be a bit senior to her, but I will move on.

I was going to speak a bit about the honourable—or respond to the hon.

Minister of Tourism. But, you know, I would not worry to do it, you know why,

Mr. Vice-President, because he ended by speaking about bias. And how can I

respond to that, when the hon. Minister who sat on the Committee has now become

judge, jury and prosecutor here. So, I would not even worry to respond to that—let

me keep my language clear. I will not speak to someone who clearly appears to be

biased, and who clearly has a position to make a decision here today, having sat on

that Committee.

Mr. Vice-President, the Report of this Committee of Privileges constitutes a

unique concoction of procedural flaws, of injustice and unfairness. It is symbolic

of injustice, Mr. Vice-President. And as the saying goes, injustice anywhere is a

threat to injustice everywhere. Mr. Vice-President, there can be no dispute that this

report has been produced with the absence of natural justice, Mr. Vice-President.

96



UNREVISED

Sen. Roberts was very clear through his communications June 22nd and other

communications, even if initially he spoke through his lawyer and that was not

acceptable by the Committee. He was clear in communications to the Committee

that he was willing to attend and participate in these hearings via the virtue of an

online platform in the safety of his home, Mr. Vice-President.

The High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council, all of these

institutions that take part in determining very complex matters, murder; they are

conducting trials online. I think the hon. Attorney General is here with us, I see

him sitting there, he speaks a lot about it—about how many trials are now coming

online. So, and then we have these joint select committees, Mr. Vice-President.

Every one of our joint select committees now, almost all, are being done on an

online platform. And many of the discussions that happen in these Committees, I

would consider to be sensitive, sensitive issues being discussed that dictate how we

build our nation, decisions that may conflict with citizens in this country who may

not agree. And I respectfully submit to my colleague on the Independent Senator

Bench, with her concern about, could it possibly be put who could be in the room

or could it possibly be put on douglAR politics and so on? But Sen. Roberts sits on

joint select committees, many of us sit on joint select committees. Could we not

put these things on social media? Who is in the room with us?

So, Mr. Vice-President, Sen. Roberts should have been given the

opportunity to appear on these proceedings in the safety of his home on a virtual

platform. That is clear. And if the Committee made a decision not to allow this,

then at least they should have taken the time to have written to him to let him know

what the decision was, Mr. Vice-President, because Sen. Roberts has a concern for

his safety. All of this is happening right now, Mr. Vice-President, during a time

when, during months, some of the deadliest months in our country, in our history,

97



UNREVISED

when we have recorded hundreds of persons dead from COVID-19. Thousands of

persons becoming infected, the Brazilian variant running rampant in this country,

the Indian variant and the Delta variant on our doorsteps. A parallel health system

that was on the verge of collapse. ICU is full and the Government came and

declared a state of emergency. That is how bad it was, Mr. Vice-President.

The entire country was gripped with fear and focusing on their self-

preservation. Us in the Senate, we were full of fear as well. We saw in another

place, a Prime Minister who contracted COVID, who could have been sitting down

there; of course, that created concern to us in the Parliament. We stayed out of the

Parliament once because of our concerns about our health, we did that. The

Parliament in another place in here took a decision to curtail their time because of

our concern for our health.

Mr. Vice-President, we lost a colleague in that time—an honourable

colleague let me say. We lost him and we did not know the circumstance but we

were so full with fear, come on, we were so full—we did not know. It is, I mean, it

is reasonable to think that it could be—that any one of us could contract COVID

inside here, today even. Mr. Vice-President, the messages were very clear from the

Government and the health regulations mandated that people should work from

home when they can, even if you belong to a business or in an industry that is

considered to be essential as we are here today.

2.30 p.m.

So, Mr. Vice-President, Sen. Roberts would have been concerned with his

health. He has a serious case of asthma and his doctor told him to stay away until

you are vaccinated. His doctor recommended—I spoke to him—that he take the

Pfizer, the Moderna or the Johnson & Johnson, all three of which we do not have

here today. In fact, at the time, I do not think we had many vaccines floating

98



UNREVISED

around.

Mr. Vice-President, Sen. Roberts feared for his life. He has a young

daughter, so do I, and I have a concern every single time I go home to my house.

So what we are saying here today—I am asking the question. I am just asking the

question. I am not imputing improper motives. But is it because of political bias

and spite that we would risk a colleague’s life?

Mr. Vice-President: As much as you have indicated yourself that you are not

imputing improper motives, it could be misconstrued as such.

Sen. D. Lyder: [Inaudible]—Mr. Vice-President. The question therefore is: Why

then would the Committee deny a reasonable request for a virtual hearing in the

safety of Sen. Roberts’ house? It was stated that rules were set up in the

Parliament. He could sit in a separate room by himself and come on virtual. But

Sen. Roberts still has to park his car, he still has to pass the security, the police are

on the outside, he still has to go through security, interact with people, he still has

to walk around the Parliament, touch the doorknobs, and when he goes in that

room, he does not know who is in that room. Who is in the room setting it up?

Could there be COVID there? But what he does know is that his home, where he

lives on his own, is safe. So that is why he asked for it. So, I have to ask myself the

question if this—the way I interpret it, when I read the Report, is the Committee,

was it assembled with a majority with the sole purpose of condemning Sen.

Roberts? I do not know. I do not know. Was it? I do not know. I am asking the

question. Because to me, it feels that they acted in a biased manner, the majority.

That is what it feels like to me. Was there a pre-determined conclusion? I do not

know.

But, Mr. Vice-President, Sen. Roberts not only offered to appear online as a

demonstration of his willingness to participate in the proceedings, he also

99



UNREVISED

submitted full written submissions to the Committee to request to cross-examine

the President of the Senate. That is a fair request. But again, he was never—there

was never any communication to him that this would not be allowed. But it was a

reasonable request. He was ready, willing and able to defend his name, his conduct

and his reputation.

A person is entitled to be heard. A person is entitled to face his accuser. A

person is entitled to known the basis of the complaint against him. These are self-

evident rights that any person enjoys when faced with proceedings against them.

This Committee simply ignored all of these due process requirements and

proceeded to condemn a man and his reputation without affording him an

opportunity to be heard or without even responding to him, Mr. Vice-President. I

mean, come on. I am sorry but this is the kind of things we see in communist North

Korea and Venezuela. Mr. Vice-President, that is the kinds of things we see there, I

have to say.

Mr. Vice-President: Two things. So I am listening intently—you are about 12

minutes into your contribution. But as you are making your contribution, the same

point is coming up again in relation to how the Committee is constructed and

something that I have ruled on earlier in relation to sounding like it is imputing

improper motives. The Parliament has a very strict procedure in the way these

things are set up. Nobody really has a say. It is just the way they are set up in that

sense.

What I am asking you to do, at this point, because you are the 10th speaker

coming into this debate, several of the points you are making as well, some of them

which you have expanded upon a lil further, which is quite fine, but the one that

you are on now has been repeated by Sen. Lutchmedial, Sen. Rambhajan and

obviously, moved by Sen. Mark when he responded to the Leader of Government

100



UNREVISED

Business. So, at this point, it is breaching the Standing Order in relation to tedious

repetition.

So what I want you to do moving forward is focus on new points, if you

have them. And any points that you are raising, expand a lil further, if you can, but

once it is repeating what has been said before, it is going to be in the realm of

tedious repetition, which is not allowed.

Sen. D. Lyder: Mr. Vice-President, there are paragraphs in the documents, which

would take us—even if I am still touching on a point, I will refer to some

paragraphs. I am guided by you. You see, Mr. Vice-President, what is worse here

is that when one reads this report, it is the void of rationale or reasons for any of

these decisions. I am merely going to recite now some events and conclude with an

unsupported recommendation. So that is what I am going to do now, with your

advice.

So when we look, for instance, at paragraph 32 of the report, the Committee

said—and I am going to quote it now, Mr. Vice-President:

“Generally, your Committee has been flexible in its operations. Due

consideration was given to Mr. Roberts’ request for a virtual meeting due to

his health concerns and the Committee went well beyond the established

meeting format for procedural and investigative processes.”

So, you see, this paragraph is replete with evasion. They are moving away. They

are not giving an answer. They are just clouding it that we have given him options;

we have given him options. But here it does not state that we wrote to Sen. Roberts

and told him, “No, you cannot do it from your home, right here.”

Mr. Vice-President, it demonstrates the mind of persons who simply have no

answer to a reasonable request from the Senator, when he sent his request. Sen.

Roberts to appear online and treat with the allegations against him, no comments

101



UNREVISED

from them. The Committee admits to being flexible here, claims it gave due

consideration but fails to say anything about why virtual hearings could not have

been afforded to Sen. Roberts. So I ask myself the question again: Why not simply

let him come online in his home? I move on.

And when I look at how this oddity continues, Mr. Vice-President, I look at

paragraph 38 of the Majority Report, this is what the Committee states:

“Accordingly, your Committee considered the effect of the words uttered by

Mr. Roberts. Your Committee considered the question of what the words

used would convey about the President of the Senate to persons hearing

them. Your Committee determined that it was clear that the satirical subtext

used by Mr. Roberts about the President of the Senate would be reasonably

understood by persons hearing them as a reflection on the President of the

Senate. Your Committee also took into consideration the use of a ‘kangaroo’

graphic being placed above the image of the President of the Senate in the

video recording dated February 26, 2021 to make the reference to the

President of the Senate as ‘Mistress Kangaroo’ more obvious to persons

viewing the recording.”

Mr. Vice-President, unfortunately, this is the crux and the pinnacle of the

Committee’s Report. This is what they are using to condemn a man. They looked

at a kangaroo graphic and linked it to the hon. Senate President. They linked it to

the hon. President of the Senate and determined that Sen. Roberts was speaking

about her. They looked at a cartoon and made that determination. [Interruption]

You could say, oh my God, all you want.

I listened to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Land and

Fisheries when he referred to Brittany Higgins in Australia. And the first thing that

came to me when I heard Australia was the kangaroo. Could I not interpret it

102



UNREVISED

differently? Sen. Roberts is an avid sports fan. He was a Minister of Sport. He

loves every sport, coached Olympic teams, all sort of things. He loves cricket—

loves the West Indies, hates Australia in cricket. But that very time, there was a

tournament going on with Australia against New Zealand. Could I not interpret it

as the kangaroo is him taking a lash against Australia? He always starts his

programmes, Mr. Vice-President, with sports. He always start his programme with

sports. I see it. He speaks about football, cricket. He always starts. [Interruption]

Yeah, I just wonder, should the citizens of Australia now send a lawsuit against

him for defaming their animal on their Coat of Arms?

I mean, I do not mean to be facetious, Mr. Vice-President, here. The point is,

is that in our culture, the comparison of persons to fictional characters, through

metaphor or allegory, is so commonplace that to condemn a man for this is

ridiculous and oppressive. You just simply interpret that that—he linked the

kangaroo to the Senate President without giving him a chance to actually tell you

that? Giving him a hearing to say that? No. I want to believe it is cricket, Australia.

That is how I interpret it. Okay? How about that?

There was another character I saw on the cartoon, some Oracle Oreo, looks

like Mr. Clean, the cleaning agent. I wonder if Procter & Gamble might send a

legal notice to Sen. Roberts. You cannot just simply interpret something without

giving a man a fair hearing.

Mr. Vice-President, the Committee stated in that paragraph that they

considered what the words used would convey about the President—let me quote

it:

“…what the words used would convey about the President of the Senate to

persons hearing them.”

But has failed, both in the report and in any letters to Sen. Roberts, to actually

103



UNREVISED

identify the words that they complained about. They came in the Senate here today

and laid it out on the floor, but that is after a decision has already been taken in the

Committee. So they could say words and interpret it here now but this was never

communicated to Sen. Roberts. So simply put, Sen. Roberts is being condemned

on the basis of exercising his speech but is yet to be informed—up to now, not

informed—of the words which he used that he is being condemned for.

It is obvious that a person must not only be given the right to be heard but

must be given the particulars of what is been alleged against him. And to date,

despite the request, several requests from Sen. Roberts and his attorney at law—

whether you want to recognize him or not—he does not know what is the precise

speech that is the subject of this complaint here today. How could that be fair?

How can that be just? All we have so far is a Committee that looked at a video,

saw a cartoon image and decided to write a report and condemn the man. An

interpretation, Mr. Vice-President, from a majority in the Committee who sit in the

Government. We challenge each other every day. It gets heated at times. Some

people get emotional. So how can that be fair?

Mr. Vice-President, I looked at an example of this when, recently, the

Supreme Court of India, the largest democracy in the world, they had a cause to

comment on the legality of the disqualification application of a member of

Parliament—and I would read— in the case of Keisham Singh v The Hon’ble

Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & ORS Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2000.

And let me just read this for you, Mr. Vice-President, so you understand:

“It is time that Parliament have a rethink on whether disqualification

petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority

when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either

de jure or de facto. Parliament may seriously consider amending the

104



UNREVISED

Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative

Assemblies as arbiter of disputes concerning disqualification which arise

under the Tenth Schedule with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired

Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some

other outside independent mechanism to ensure that such disputes are

decided both swiftly and impartially…” —the word meaning impartially—

“thus giving real teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule,

which are so vital in the proper functioning of our democracy.”

Mr. Vice-President, the point the Supreme Court of India was making, is that

the disqualification of a member of Parliament is a very serious thing. Making

decisions to punish any member—


Sen. D. Lyder: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President—is a very serious thing. To me,

this report is an attempt to maybe even muzzle freedom of speech by simple

interpretations on the next side. I could tell you no one is above public criticism

and no one is above scrutiny. It cannot be that a Committee with an inbuilt political

bias, sit and decide that a Member of the Senate must face consequences to the

rights of his freedom of speech, without providing natural justice in the case and

hearing his side of the case.

Here we have two Members; two Members who presented in this debate

with venom. They have now become judge, jury and prosecutor here today. That is

what I heard. I heard the hon. Minister of Tourism talk about the Red House when

he learnt it in school. The Red House is the seat of democracy. He is correct. It is

not the Red House of the PNM. It is the seat of democracy. But we stand up and

witnessed judge, jury and prosecutor here today. How can that be fair? How can

that be just?

105



UNREVISED

Mr. Vice-President, you know what? Let me wrap this up and let me

continue to look at the most biased proceeding I have ever seen. Thank you. [Desk

thumping]

Sen. Jearlean John: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, for the opportunity to join

this debate. Hon. Vice-President, Sen. Sagramsingh-Sooklal, I really wish the

debate was about misogyny or the issues faced by women in the workplace

because at 38, as you are now, I was the General Manager of the Public Transport

Service Corporation, so I understand. And at this stage in my life, my daughter is

38 years old and also an attorney at law. So, I understand. I wish we could have

really have a robust debate about the issues that—I mean, I have now transcended

this time—you have to face.

One would have heard the passion, and these are not good things to face, these

challenges, as young professionals coming up. But unfortunately, as Sen.

Rambhajan would have pointed out, the debate is not about that—and the way I

have the date, I am hoping I have it right—but it is 2021.03.02. So that could be

the 2nd of March, 2021, our hon. President of the Senate, in making some remarks

when the Motion was introduced to the House, she said—

“…the President of the Senate delivered at a sitting held on Thursday,

December 10…”—that was in reflection.

“On that occasion, Madam President cautioned all Members and Sen.

Roberts, in particular, on a similar matter by stating definitively and I quote:

‘Hon. Senators, when these matters arise it really—one may

think, it is about me, but it is not.”

So she set the parameters that it is not about her. You know, she went on to say

what she felt it was about, right? But she was very clear that it was not about her.

So it was the sitting of the Privileges Committee and they said it was about

106


Sen. John (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Mr. Roberts committed contempt of the Senate on February 23rd and 26th by

making statements using satirical subtext, et cetera. One and two—I do not want to

be accused of tedious repetition. But, Mr. Vice-President, just as my colleague on

the Opposition Bench said just now, in terms of, yes, the Committee did offer or

sent out request on three separate occasions asking that hon. Sen. Roberts will

come in to sit in with the Committee, I have—since we have had the regulations,

the Public Health Regulations, and there is a decision on how many people may sit

in the Chamber, I spend time in the conference room—the conference room used

by the Opposition and I have seen—we have practising attorneys—attorneys who

practise in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago—and you will just see them pick up

their laptops and run into an adjoining room because they are attending court right

there. They attend to their matter, they complete and they move on.

So, I do not know—[Interruption], sorry? Well, Mr. Vice-President, I have

also sat on a particular committee with the hon. Attorney General and there are

times he would say I am attending to three or four matters at the same time. So

there you have it—you understand—that now, this is an accepted practice. So I

cannot understand why the Committee did not invite—although they have said in

the report that that was contemplated, the use of a virtual hearing. That was

contemplated but it was not acted upon.

So all that we are saying here today—and some of it is really imputing

improper motives against the hon. Senator which is so unfortunate—we really do

not know. It is all hypothetical. Because one did not hear his voice. He could not

have been cross-examined or questioned or any of those things. So when hon. Sen.

Vieira spoke about he read the report last night—and I am paraphrasing in a way

here because I could not write as quickly—and he wondered whether Sen. Roberts

had deliberately absented himself in order to rundown the clock, so the matter will

107



UNREVISED

die at midnight tonight, I think that was very unfortunate because we cannot know

because he did not speak. And we could even say he was not given an opportunity

to speak. Because it is very obvious, in this situation of the pandemic, that there are

people who are very concerned. We do not know. We have not walked a mile in

his shoe. You know, we cannot say, “Well, okay, yes he is down in some studio

somewhere having a good time, but he did not seek to come here.”

What also was referenced by Sen. Vieira is that he saw that he attended

meetings virtually, committee meetings of the Parliament virtually. So that showed

that there was a willingness on Sen. Roberts’ part to participate and I think there is

a missed opportunity. I mean, people could have said all of these things and said

them with some degree of certainty, if indeed Sen. Roberts had been given an

opportunity to speak.

And Sen. Mitchell spoke about, of course, he refused to attend and that it

was somewhere in the proceedings that he indicated—Sen. Roberts that is—that he

had asthma. You know, some people—people are different. There are some people

who like to share, some do not like to share. I do not know. We do not know. And,

to me, I do not like to impugn improper motives or to deal with hypothetical

situations. Maybe I have lived too long a life, you know, so now I am not into what

if and scenario analysis, you know. So, if this gentleman says “I have asthma”,

then we have to take him at his word because we do not know. You know, but to

go further and to state that he could not have presented a certificate to support any

ill-health because no doctor would have been willing to engage in fraud, I think

that is very unfortunate because we do not know. Because the Committee, it

appears, never asked him whether—if he could substantiate the claims of ill-health.

Because, Mr. Vice-President, when the meeting was supposed—he was

invited to appear on Friday, April, 23rd at 10.30 a.m., or thereabouts. On that date,

108



UNREVISED

you had, I think it was 104 new cases and three deaths. On the other day, May 6th,

you had 191 deaths—sorry, at the time you had an amalgamation of 191 deaths,

and on the last day, June 23rd, we had gotten to 768. So, someone with would have

been, what?—a pre-existing condition or I do not know if it is a comorbidity,

whatever it is, maybe one also— the same way I think people are willing to say

there was some level of dishonesty, why could it not also be there was

truthfulness? But we do not—the point is, Mr. Vice-President, we just do not

know.

And I think in a circumstance such as that, we really missed an opportunity

to find out because I could understand the Committee’s frustration to say we have

invited once, twice. We have said, okay, there are two rooms, et cetera. But if

someone is saying, “I am uncertain”, you know—and what is obvious in this

period of pandemic is making access of the technology, and one did not make use

of it, I think, Mr. Vice-President, we are can only come to the conclusion that the

Committee’s works would have been incomplete because Sen. Roberts’ voice was

not heard. And therefore, I will have to join myself with the findings or the

suggestions of the Minority Report that Sen. Roberts be advised, that in the

absence of any willful or deliberate intent on the part of Sen. Roberts—because I

am not sure that we can come to any conclusions here, any definitive conclusions.

So, basically, that as Sen. Mark recommended, in clause 30 of his report:

“The undersigned recommends that the President issue guidance based on

existing rules of the Senate and possibly new rules to all members in the

appropriate use of social media by members of the Senate whenever

reporting…”—et cetera, et cetera.

So, Mr. Vice-President, with those very few words, I want to thank you very

much for the opportunity. [Desk thumping]

109


Sen. Bethelmy (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Sen. Yokymma Bethelmy: Mr. Vice-President, I thank you for the opportunity to

rise and to contribution to this especially important debate. As the youngest female

Senator, I want to thank my Leader of Government Business for giving me another

opportunity to use my voice in this honourable Chamber.

You see, Mr. Vice-President, this is not a Chamber of silence. This is a

Chamber of high esteem where we come to raise our voices and act in the best

interest of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, regardless of what side of the

bench you sit. Once you walk through those doors, you are now representing all

citizens. And today, I will raise my voice to give support to this Motion for all

females, both in politics, out of politics, and persons experiencing bullying. [Desk

thumping] If we do not stand for rules and principles, we risk this honourable

Chamber becoming savage and dark.

3.00 p.m.

I heard Senators say this morning that this is not an issue of bullying; yes, it

is. Allow me to share the definition of bullying or a definition of bullying, which

is:

An unbridled attack against someone who at that moment cannot defend

themselves.

Do you know what a bully looks like? It is someone who after committing such

acts of intimidation uses excuses about having asthma, [Desk thumping] crying,

hiding behind illogical rambling while asking others to defend them. Sen. Mark

claimed in his contribution that our Leader of Government Business failed to

persuade this Senate as to why the recommendations in this report should not be

adopted. What is there to persuade again? This is coming from a Senator or

Senators who continue to wrongfully accuse this Government of not doing

everything we can to protect our women. You now have the opportunity to speak

110



UNREVISED

up and protect a colleague who was attacked on a live show by another colleague

and you fail to hold him to accountability, [Desk thumping] and that is what our

Leader of Government Business made mention to, of a boys’ club.

Sen. Mark even went on to say that this was not done intentionally but, Mr.

Vice-President, this is a well-known show with a substantial fan base, as Sen.

Lutchmedial so proudly boasted that has fans in Guyana. This attack was planned

from the meeting of his team to the cutting and editing of the clips from the Senate.

It was well orchestrated. During that entire process, Sen. Roberts then had the

opportunity to stop and think and let good sense prevail. And if that was not

enough, he had another opportunity while saying, “Join the live. Join the live.”,

and at that time he still did not take the opportunity to stop himself.

Sen. Mark went on to say that he was hoping that this would be a nice

debate—a nice debate? A Member of this esteemed House was attacked by another

colleague publicly for doing her job. Mr. Vice-President, “nice” went out the

window when that occurred. [Desk thumping] There is nothing nice about this

anymore. [Desk thumping] As a young woman in politics I expect to be protected,

not just in this honourable Chamber but in every aspect of my life, and I was so

ashamed and I felt like I had to extend my apologies as a woman to watch, not one,

not two, but three female Senators on the opposite side being forced to join and

stand in this illogical dance to defend an offender. [Desk thumping] Imagine Sen.

Lyder just stood in this honourable Chamber and defended a man that has

absolutely no respect for our Presiding Officer who is a woman. Mr.

Vice-President, the attacks on our Presiding Officer should have never occurred to

her or any colleague in this Chamber, whether it be man or women. [Desk

thumping]

Mr. Vice-President, I have spoken to and witnessed colleagues and other

111



UNREVISED

women in politics being bullied and having to deal with sexism and hatred on

social media all for doing their jobs. Our job here is not easy but our roles are very

clear. We are here to represent the interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago

and it does not matter which side of the Chamber you sit on. We are here for our

people, not for ourselves or not to attack each other. We are held to the high

standards and the people of Trinidad and Tobago expect us to use our voice in a

respectful manner and in a manner that makes them proud. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President, I am a new politician. I am not as experienced as some

of the hon. Members in this House but I am guided by our Standing Orders, and if

after 10 months of being in this Chamber I do not know how to act, then what it is

you are really doing here? And he has had more than 10 months. He is an

experienced politician. So if by now you do not know how to act, then it not

making sense. [Desk thumping] Sen. Mark is trying convince this honourable

Chamber to teach experienced adults who served as Ministers previously on how

to act. After all these years you still do not know how to act? Is training on the use

of social media by politicians needed? Yes, it is needed. Mr. Vice-President, when

you listen to the speakers before me, Sen. Roberts was given numerous

opportunities to defend himself and he did not take it.

Mr. Vice-President, why should I or any other female have to live and work

in fear and that is exactly what it is, living and working in fear because there are

men who cannot deal with our strength and the fact that we walk in our purpose.

[Desk thumping] We think of bullying as a childhood issue and while it is, the

brutal reality is that one of our greatest oppressors today is adult bullying. [Desk

thumping] What does adult bullying look like? It looks like Sen. Roberts online

show, douglAR politics. It is the telling of untruths about a colleague to promote

fear and intimidation. [Desk thumping] In the report under the considerations of the

112



UNREVISED

details and nature of the breach, the Committee’s research demonstrated among

other findings, section 35(e):

“As with the intimidation of a Member or witness, the intimidation or

attempted intimidation of the Speaker or any other Chair Occupant is viewed

very seriously by the House.”

So you are in breach. This is not a witch hunt. [Desk thumping]

He even went on to say on his douglAR politics show that:

“…something”—must have—“happened”—to—“Headmistress Kangaroo”

—that—“turned her into a wicked witch...”

And you want me to sit down here and say, “Yes, okay, no problem. No, he did not

do anything wrong. Let us take it”—no, I am not accepting that. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President, social media is a tool to be used as a platform for

positivity. In these times we have seen social media used for some people to stay

connected, to start businesses and to voice our opinions. And do not get me wrong,

I understand that we have the right to view our opinions and that we enjoy certain

privileges but it should not be abused. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President, the way in which we deal with this matter goes beyond

simple guidelines of how to use social media. It has to do with our culture change

overall and understanding why some men are so intimidated by women in our

power and our ability to walk in our purpose. It involves us acknowledging and

identifying workplace bullying. It involves us specifically dealing with workplace

bullying on and off social media by implementing a policy of consequences and

enforcing them. It includes to foster a culture of teamwork and respect. Respect is

extremely important within this Chamber and within your daily life. I do not know

anyone who could just function like that.

Mr. Vice-President, the ugly truth hiding behind bullying, especially

113



UNREVISED

concerning who is most often affected, according to the Workplace Bullying

Institute, says that 69 per cent of bullies are males and their targets are 57 per cent

females, and 31 per cent females are usually bullies and 68 per cent of females—

females are always the target for some strange reason. Why is that? Do you think

we are weak? Do you think you could just stand and attack us whenever you feel

like it?

Workplace bullying is an unfortunate fact and it is not something that we

should just accept. Work to identify and eradicate bullying with transparent

policies and enforcement and work to continue building our institutions, culture

around teamwork and respect. Imagine the Opposition Leader has six picks of

Senators to place in this honourable House and today we have to stand and debate

the misconduct of one of them. You know how much Bills we could be passing

right now that actually affects—we actually have two Bills to pass now. Right

now, we have to waste time to defend or to talk about the misconduct of another

colleague. Why is that? We are wasting the people’s time. [Desk thumping] We are

wasting our citizens’ money. Every time we have to stand here and talk and waste

time.

Mr. Vice-President, as you see a lot of us may have become very emotional

about the topic, but I would just like to conclude by saying, this is a very

unfortunate event and as a young person it is something that I believe needs to be

addressed and the relevant persons need to be held accountable. We are not just

defending the individual sitting in the Chair, we are defending whoever sits in that

Chair, whether it be male or female. [Desk thumping] We are defending the office.

We are defending this esteemed Chamber. And I want to call on the Opposition

Leader to stop just talking and to actually put her words into action. It is very easy

to host a candlelight vigil but when the opportunity arises for you to defend or to

114



UNREVISED

support the findings of this Report against another, for the attack against another

colleague, you seriously trying to protect the offender and then you want to stand

in this Chamber constantly and accuse us of not doing everything we can to protect

the women of Trinidad and Tobago? That is the heights of hypocrisy. With those

few words, I thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Vice-President: Sen. Nakhid. [Desk thumping]

Sen. David Nakhid: God most gracious, most merciful. Mr. Vice-President,

surprisingly I find myself in this debate feeling very dispassionate when I notice

the passion and the fury and the self-righteous indignation exhibited by that side

but nothing to do with the issue at hand. This debate has as much to do with

bullying, gender abuse, as the PNM has to do with good governance. In other

words, nothing. This debate comes down to a few essential issues if we look at

things dispassionately. And they are, whether there was malicious intent on the

part of the hon. Senator, Anil Roberts, to bring this Parliament, the Senate into a

contemptuous position. No one on that side or no one on that side has convinced

anybody that this is so. And why we can say that with such comfort and ease and

why I feel comfortable with what has transpired, is that the lead, the hon. Minister

of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries completely went apart from what was the first

issue I saw in reading the Report.

There was the admission that this was a satirical context. His emissions were

satirical but everybody glossed over that. Someone even tried to put him into

context. I think it was the hon. Minister of Tourism. He brought, in my opinion,

this Parliament into disrepute that he spoke about, and I will tell you why. Anil

Roberts never mentioned the Senate President by name, not once. For someone to

come here and connect “kangaroo” with “Kangaloo”, that is their business. Thatt

has nothing to do with Sen. Anil Roberts at all. You are imputing that. You have to

115


Sen. Nakhid (cont’d)

UNREVISED

leave that up to the public to decide. That is the concept or the idea of satire.

And if you want to quote and go back into history, I heard Sen. Vieira speak

about Cicero, “egho borona milao sto—egho boro na milao sto hellenica”. I do not

even know—I know about Greek literature because I can speak the language and I

lived in Greece for years. So you cannot bring Cicero and quote Cicero to suit your

agenda of painting Sen. Anil Roberts in a certain way by saying that his tongue

was this because he had the gift of the gab. But the context was that Cicero was

accurately depicting the abuse of power by Mark Anthony facilitated by the riches

of his wife, Fulvia. That was the context that he left out quite conveniently because

Cicero believes and he believed the society should be a means to an end, that it

should be facilitated by good men. So I wish to advise in his looking at Greek

literature, maybe he might want to read about Sophistees that gave birth to

sophistry.

So, this whole debate reminds me of the many things I used to hear in my

house with my father and mother. They would always have a saying when

something happened in the house, you know. And I am sure here in Trinidad and

Tobago it is a common thing from our parents. You know, “That is a storm in a tea

cup”, for example. I would hear, you know, “What a tangled web we weave”. I

think everybody is familiar with these things. “What a tangled web we weave

when we endeavour to deceive”, things like that. We would hear those and it

reminds me of this debate. So when I hear this whole song and dance, gender

abuse, bullying, this and that, ascribing improper motives to the Senator that has

never been proved—and I let it flow. I could have invoke a Standing Order but I

wanted it to flow so I could speak about it, because I believe that nowhere, no-how

anyone can ascribe to Sen. Anil Roberts malicious intent, not to deceive the

Parliament as has been said or not to deceive the Privileges Committee.

116



UNREVISED

I know Anil Roberts personally for over 35 years. Anil Roberts was my

coach. Not only is he brilliant, he is extremely disciplined in his work, extremely

disciplined. When I was captain of the national team, I had an injury at 34 years

old—all doctors in Europe—I was still playing—end of my career. Anil Roberts

stayed six months with me. Every morning he would meet me down in the mall

and then up in the pool in Curepe; from the mall to the—for six months every

morning, Mr. Vice-President, to get me back to fitness. I played another seven

years until the age of 41, professional football because of his discipline, because of

his intent. And then to hear people come here and talk so casually about he had

malicious intent, and everybody talked even in his favour about he has a daughter.

To take it one step further, I would like to ask anybody on that side, what if

something happened to him? Not only does he have a daughter, he is a sole

provider of that daughter. For all intents and purposes, he is a single parent; that is

a fact. That is a fact. Anil is a single provider and sole provider of his young

daughter.

So when you hear the cavalier contributions that he was deceptive in not

coming to the meetings and they go quickly over that he offered himself virtually.

For me that was massive because let me tell you why. I have no problem if Sen.

Anil Roberts, because when I look at those emissions, if any one time the name of

the Senate President was directly called, if he had done anything to reflect

bullying, I would have recused myself today. I grew up in a home, not only with a

matriarch of immense, immense respect and honour, but with three sisters, so I do

not understand the need in serving a political agenda, and I was extremely

disappointed with the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries. I mean, there

was no substance other than the fire and the fury and the shaking of the hand and

the pointing of the finger, but nothing of substance to indicate where Sen. Anil

117



UNREVISED

Roberts attempted to deceive anybody. He could not make it out of real fear for his

health and thereby the health and safety of his daughter. And I will like to pose a

question to all of us who have children here. Were any of us prepared to take over

the responsibility should something have happened to Sen. Anil Roberts of taking

care of that daughter? If I was in his position in an asthmatic condition, I was not

coming.

I think when we come to procedural flaws that were present, I think that has

been gone over by most of my colleagues, and I must say, expertly done. So then I

come to why the distractions about gender abuse and bullying and the rage? Why?

And it was striking to me in the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries’

submission, and remember this very well, it is right here; he admitted that he likes

the programme. He liked it. He likes watching the programme but he went on to

say that it was about the reach that Anil was obtaining. He even spoke about one of

their own activists, PNM activists on social media who was only getting 85 views

or viewers, while Anil was in the 9,000, and it is maybe more. So then just to raise

that point indicates it is not about the principle of the thing, it is the fear of what he

is saying. So then it comes to, it is an intent to have censorship on Sen. Anil

Roberts, because even one of the following speakers, I think it was Sen. Mitchell—

sorry, the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries—I think he mentioned—

sorry, the Minister of Tourism, sorry—I think he himself mentioned that the

programme should be stopped as did Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries.

Why?

Listen, you know, I have no problem with this side or this side making their

contributions and I understand the real fear of somebody like Sen. Anil Roberts.

He is a brilliant guy politically, we all know that. I understand the interest in

probably silencing him, we know that. But, Mr. Vice-President, it does not cut to

118



UNREVISED

the issue contained in the report. And once we establish that he never got a chance

to present his side, the burden becomes on that Privilege Committee to prove him

guilty. No one is guilty before they are innocent even before a Privileges

Committee, no one. So even the 1 per cent chance that he is innocent—and I heard

numerous speakers here, including Sen. Vieira, including Sen Richards, “Anil is

meh fren. I work with him”—“ta da da”. I think Sen. Rambharat. Well, if he is

your friend and there remains that 1 or 2 per cent doubt, why do you not give him

that doubt if he is “yuh fren”? Because for me “none ah alyuh” is my friend but I

respect all of you. But none of you are my friends, and I “doh” care if “I is yours”,

but I respect all of you, all of you, even you.

So, Mr. Vice-President, I looked up what means “satire” in a democracy

and, you know, it actually says by several speakers, even one—let me get his

name—Joshua Forkert, who wrote a definitive paper on “Guidelines on the use of

social media in Parliament”; and they speak about satire in democracy and we have

to be careful because once satire is used, the person who is the object or subject of

that satire, if they are not able to understand that satire or feel themselves above

satire, it shows their true character. So if you have a government that feels that

there is not or they should not be the subject of satirical content, then we are

slipping slowly into something that is not democracy. I do not want to say and get

people riled up and talk about dictatorship but we have to be careful because

legitimate criticism in a respectful forum, in my opinion, bolsters our democracy. It

does not lessen it, it bolsters it.

So this talk about toxic environment in the workplace and what happened on

douglAR politics could affect the workplace—specious, specious arguments.

I would like just to touch and rebut that it is incumbent upon us to remember

that we are in a gayelle that sometimes can be bitter, sometimes can be cordial and

119



UNREVISED

harmonious, and I see all the time Sen. Wade Mark is a person who gets along with

almost everyone; I am not like that and I do not need to be, but it is important that

respect is there. And I think once we recognize a mutual respect, we would not be

given to exaggerations like we heard today.

Once we respect the fact that Sen. Anil Roberts in truth and in fact is a very

decent man, we would not have had these exaggerations about he targeted the

Senate President and he did that and it was a big conspiracy between his

production team. No, no, why go down that road? If what we want to speak about

and laud about and promote that, we are actually in fact senatorial colleagues. And

just a little titbit that—I was thinking if to just give it—in truth and in fact, one of

the people who actually speaks at the press conferences on health hosted by this

Government is Anil’s physician, Dr. Trotman, who knows very well of his

condition.

So to cast any doubt whether he has asthma like the Minister of Tourism did, it

lessens us. That is my point.

3.30 p.m.

In truth and in fact, this whole proceeding has brought this Senate into

disrepute more than what he is accused of, more than what he is accused of. So in

my opinion, [Interruption] I speak above your level—in my opinion, Mr. Vice-

President, I think it is important that in keeping to our political agendas, which we

have, I still believe that we can be honest, or have some degree of honesty, even if

it does not serve our political agenda.

So I totally reject, in the interest of truth, impartiality, objectivity, this idea

that Sen. Anil Roberts targeted anyone, that he abused anyone, and I just would

wish, my last point, which I found the most out of place among the many out of

place comments, I think the Minister of Tourism he said at the end that were it up

120



UNREVISED

to him there would have been harsher penalties. Harsher penalties, and he did not

provide any shred of evidence of why there should be harsher penalties. Then I

wished in my heart then that also there should be harsher penalties for people who

are “duncey”.

So, Mr. Vice-President, I thank you for allowing me the chance to defend

my brother, my colleague, the hon. Sen. Anil Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Vice-

President. [Desk thumping]



Rambharat): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President. I listened to Sen.

Nakhid, I note his comment that he lived in Greece and he knows the language.

Well Sir, I want to tell you that you live in Trinidad and Tobago now, and you

should learn your Standing Orders. [Desk thumping and laughter]

These Standing Orders, amended on 31 March, 2015, this is the proud work

of your Government. If you had read it, you would have saved us about 15

minutes—15 minutes you schooled us on satire. You would have read on

Appendix II the:

“General Rules for the Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings”

Because, if you had read the transcript, almost 38 pages of the second video

transcript, if you had read it—I know you did not—you would know that the video,

the show, douglAR politics on the 26th of February, 2021, was presented using in

part recordings from the Parliament broadcast. So that in relation to broadcasting

of excerpts from proceedings, Appendix II treats with broadcasts of excerpts and

reports of the proceedings separate. And 3(a) reads as follows:

“broadcasts of excerpts shall be used only for the purposes of fair and

accurate reports of proceedings, and shall not be used for—

121



UNREVISED

(i) political party advertising or election campaigns;

(ii) satire and ridicule;

(iii) the purpose of maliciously attacking someone’s reputation or

character; or

(iv) commercial sponsorship of commercial advertising;”

It is there in Roman numerals, something that you should be familiar with.

If you do not understand English, you would at least understand—so satire.

As Sen. Vieira said, this is not school boy business, and I have no time for the

foolishness I have heard today. I have no time. Go and read your Standing Orders.

To say that Sen. Roberts never got a chance to present his side, there are at

least eight letters written to Sen. Roberts, the last one being on the last day,

meeting of the last day, June23, 2021, very detailed. If you are told to come to the

Parliament, the purpose of the hearing, and you propose all sorts of different

things, every letter refers to every piece of correspondence received, and every

letter contained very clear responses—very, very clear responses.

I would not get into Sen. Roberts’ medical condition, because that was told

in the correspondence, but he got his chance. More importantly, he used his

chance—

Hon. Member: No, he did not.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat:—by submitting a written—he made a written

submission. He promised to add to it, but he made his submission. He took

technical points relating to the absence of details of the conduct complained about.

He took the technical point of the death of our former colleague, Sen. Khan, and

the way that affected the proceedings. He took procedural points and he made his

submissions, which were considered by the Committee. So to say he never got a

chance, that is not true.

122



UNREVISED

Sen. Lyder caused me to go to the washroom, because it was—I have heard

a lot of—I have three children, I have heard a lot of fairy tales in my life, I have

read a lot of them, I still read them, but for a big man, an adult in a Parliament,

given 30 minutes, to say that Sen. Roberts is a sports fan, a cricket fan. Around that

time the Australians were playing, and the use of the kangaroo is relating to the

Australian cricket. I mean, they invented the expression cock and bull for a story

like that, and I would add another word to “bull”, given the chance. I mean, as my

colleague Sen. Bethelmy said, wasting precious time, 30 minutes, with a cock, bull

and “chupid” kangaroo story.

And this thing about bias, well let me answer the bias question. I keep

hearing about bias. Four Independent Senators, this is a unique Parliament—a

unique Parliament. Trinidad and Tobago’s Parliament is unique. Unique, it is

bicameral, many are unicameral, but we still have in this House three Benches. We

have heard from four Independent Senators today, all four in support of the Report,

including three who could not be on the Committee, well researched and presented.

So if you say there is bias, then you make a serious allegation once again, once

again, against the Independent Bench, for which there is no justification.

I want to go to Sen. Lutchmedial and Sen. Rambhajan to say this. I listened

very carefully, I respect both of them, I like them, but not as much as I like my

friend Sen. Mark, and it struck me to hear Sen. Lutchmedial say, in a bit of sotto

voce, “I have my own views. I will not do that”. In other words, Sen. Lutchmedial

was talking about the matter, and she says, “I have my own views. I would not do

that”. What Sen. Lutchmedial is doing is applying a personal standard of what she

would do and would not do. The thing about the Parliament and why the

Constitution excepts from itself the Parliament, is because of the history and

purpose of this Parliament.

123



UNREVISED

When you look at the Standing Orders, the practice and the way in which we

have historically conducted ourselves, it is not a personal standard to be applied, of

how Anil Roberts chooses to behave and how Sen. Lutchmedial chooses to behave.

It is a standard that is applicable across Parliaments in every jurisdiction. That is

what we have signed up for.

I want to answer—there is an undercurrent flowing through here, and I want

to repeat what I said in the seventh meeting of the Privileges Committee, because I

was very clear, and my notes are here. On the said transcript I made my notes. I

placed on the record of that Committee that Sen. Roberts is somebody who I have

no problem talking to, I have known him long. I worked with his parents. I have

known him, I have known all the siblings, and I consider him to be a friend. I

considered him to be a friend.

I made the point that he is a second-term parliamentarian, a former Minister.

Not many of us get to serve in both Houses. Sen. Gopee-Scoon is one, Sen. Khan

who was here before, not many of us. Not many of us in this country get to serve in

a Cabinet. He has had that experience, growing up in the home, two lawyers as

parents. I made the point that he is an outstanding national athlete. He is an

outstanding and successful coach, and I made the point that I consider him to be an

intelligent person.

I did not use the word “like” Sen. Nakhid to describe the programme. I look

at the programme, because I know he is a seasoned politician and an intelligent

person, and I want to hear his views. I want to hear his views, as I listen to all the

others that I could follow. So that I do not want anybody—this issue, I said that in

the Committee because I understood that I was on a committee that was dealing

with a matter involving a friend of mine, and I had to be clear in my own thoughts

on the matter.

124



UNREVISED

This transcript helped me a lot—helped me a lot to understand. So, it is not

because I do not like Sen. Roberts, I want to get rid of him or his programme. My

reference to the viewership of the programme—the lawyers amongst us and those

who understand libel and slander and those things, part of the consideration of the

damage—when you are considering the odium that that has been brought to the

House, you have to consider the reach of the contemptuous conduct, because I said

it when I made the point.

I did not just say it is 9,000 persons, I was speaking about the reach and the

people who would have heard and might have been convinced by what Sen.

Roberts said, especially persons who would not understand otherwise, because he

is a Member of the House, he has been asked to leave the House, and people will

believe him, viewers would believe him. If there was nobody watching, it would be

different from 9,000 and a well-watched programme. That is why I made the point,

not that I—I have no desire to—I do not have the power actually to shut him down.

I do not see him as a threat. I have ran and lost in two elections already, and I am

still here standing surviving. I do not perceive anybody as a threat. I work with all

of you and I work with everybody. I do not have a problem also, I am doing what

has to be done and thinking what has been to be thought. So, I do not want

anybody to feel that this is personal. This is not personal.

I want to say, in relation to the submissions from my friends Senators

Rambhajan and Lutchmedial, I anticipated the defence lawyers, and I anticipated

the grave errors they would make, especially in relation to the Constitution.

Because this is a different place, this Parliament, when we step foot here. You see,

let me illustrate.

If you look at Standing Order 28, for example, the “Contents of Questions”,

and it reads:

125



UNREVISED

“The right to ask a question shall be subject to the following general rules, as

to the interpretation of which the President shall be the sole judge:”

Sole judge, the President. So when you come to me with freedom of speech and

procedure, and natural justice and so on. Then you go through:

“A question shall not contain preambles, opinions, statement of facts...”

That is freedom of expression being constrained there. You “cyar” come in here

and say what you want, and when you want and for how long you want. You could

go on douglAR politics and do that, and you could go on the sidewalk and do that.

“not more than one subject shall be referred to in any one question,...

A question shall not contain arguments, allegations, inferences, opinions,

imputations, epithets, ironical expressions or hypothetical cases;”

It goes on to not reflecting on character, I am just using one Standing Order to say,

what my colleague Sen. Mitchell referred to earlier, as the exceptions contained in

the Constitution, is what gives this Parliament its lifeblood.

Even when the constraints are in the context of if you get to talk, how long

you are allowed to talk, what you are allowed to speak on, what is considered

relevant and irrelevant. Even if your cell phone “go off”, you are invited to leave

the Chamber, sometimes for the rest of the day. So that this is not as free a place as

you believe the Constitution allows to be; it is not, and this is what we have signed

up for.

It is difficult sometimes to understand. If you have practised any element of

the law that deals with process and procedure, judicial review, governance, even if

you have worked with rules of the court on the criminal side or the civil side, if

you have ever had to present evidence in court, you are constrained by all these

processes, all these procedures. When you get into this House, no matter how

many times you have been to the Privy Council, the President, the Presiding

126



UNREVISED

Officer maintains the order in this House, and the ruling of the Presiding Officer is

final. Not one of us, on being told to sit down or leave the Chamber, have been told

to sit down because of tedious repetition, goes to the High Court and say, “My

constitutional rights are being infringed in the Parliament,” because you understand

fully, and it is a difficult thing to deal with.

I have seen then Sen. Saddam Hosein put out once or twice for things he

may or may not have done. The whole noise in the centre of the floor on both

sides, he got put out. I have seen people whose cell phones did not go off, were

asked to leave the Chamber, because the Presiding Officer maintains the order and

the rulings are final.

That is at the heart of the transcript of the second video. You see, I listened

to Sen. Nakhid talk about the non-reference to the Presiding Officer by name, but

that is why you yourself described it as satire. Let us not waste time. The

juxtaposition, the splicing in of the videos, and just the terminology, because on

the first page, on the first page, there is the reference to the “Madam Referee” on

three occasions. Then you go through and you see it is tied up very nicely at the

back, the references to “Referee”, and I am just using one.

When you go to page 33 of the transcript, it says, many questions you all are

the judges.

“Tone it down.”

What is that? Standing Order, this is Standing Order, this is the book. The referee

supposed to use the book. Everything is tied up here very nicely, so it tells Roberts

is intelligent. He uses the satire. He creates the “planet Senatah”. [Interruption]

Sen. Nakhid, “doh” let me down. I mean, “planet Senatah”, and that has nothing to

do with the Senate and the Senators, and the Senate President?

Sen. Nakhid: I cannot believe you are a lawyer.

127



UNREVISED

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: No wonder you attacked the police service and

you had had to apologize, your thought processes. No matter you had to—you

made that crazy attack on the police service and then had to apologize. You should

have read this. You should have read this.

I like you, you know, but you just frustrate me sometimes. You should have

read this. This is nice, easy reading, and child-friendly, and you would have seen

and understood. You would have understood the construct of this, which brought

you to Cicero and satire and everything. This is high level “ting”. I “cyar” conceive

of doing this, that is why I said my friend is intelligent, and it was well done, but it

is also well wrong, and we are here to address that. [Desk thumping]

There is this talk about women, and distraction and all of that, but I do not

believe that anything relating to the protection of women is a distraction. I did not

land on that accidentally, you know, it is the transcript that brought me there. I did

not land on that, because it is the transcript that crafted the “sweet, loving

Headmistress Kangaroo”, because it is on page 2 we start:

“It is part two of Planet Senatah with Headmistress Kangaroo and Booming

Voice.”

You could disagree with me, I do not mind that. You may say my imagination runs

wild, but I have been around long, and the characterization—you know, the

Presiding Officer is a longstanding lawyer, former Member of Parliament, former

Government Minister, and a second term President of the Senate. My interpretation

is that it was a sexist way of characterizing the Senator, the President, a

headmistress, to manage “lil’ chirren”, that is the characterization of it, and it

started there, because I read something into that, and you could disagree with me. I

read something in the construct.

You could have said that she is the head of the military in the country, but

128



UNREVISED

she is a headmistress. Well, my mom is a headmistress, and they are outstanding

people in this country, and I have a lot of love and respect for them. They tried

hard with me, all of them. But I understand the intent of that, I understand that, and

if you find that that is not a characterization that is demeaning, I invite you to go

lower down on page 2 where Sen. Roberts, in satire mode said—[Interruption]

Sen. Nakhid: Satirical mode.

Sen. The Hon. Clarence Rambharat: No, satire:

“But something happened in the life of Headmistress Kangaroo and it turned

her into a wicked witch.”

“I married so long and I know the word ‘wicked’ and the word ‘witch’ cyar even

go separately in a conversation, far less together.” A wicked witch, a wicked witch.

“Yuh” live in Greece, you know the history of witches, how demeaning it is, how

derogatory it is, how offensive it is, how hurtful it is?

Sen. Nakhid: How is that referring to— [Inaudible]

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: And how it is to characterize a woman as a wicked

witch? And you tell me this is not an attack on women in position? This country is

unique.

Mr. Vice-President: Minister, you have five more minutes.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: A female head of State, a female Presiding Officer

in the Senate and a Presiding Officer in the House. [Desk thumping] That is the

best we could do, a wicked witch? [Interruption] The Prime Minister could handle

his stories; “I handle mine today”. This is my assignment today.

Sen. Nakhid: You are not doing a good job.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Then we go to page 3, where the kangaroo,

the Headmistress Kangaroo—it says: “She became bitter. She became angry.”

Straight out—what is the name of the characterization, Diary of a Mad Black

129



UNREVISED

Woman? Bitter, angry and:

“she became a dictator. She became aggressive...”

Listen, you could be vex how much you want, this is a workplace, and this is the

boss of a workplace. [Desk thumping] Enforcing the Standing Orders that you put

in place that has empowered her and all before her, to do her job, has been

characterized, because you do not like it and you do not wish to subscribe to it, she

has been characterized as bitter, angry and dictator.

That is why Australia got itself in that position and that is why the Governor

General in Canada got herself and lost her job, because it was not addressed, and

that is why I opened like that this morning, because I knew, I knew, that you were

coming with your lawyers to argue procedure, and I came here to argue dignity of

the House, [Desk thumping] dignity of the House.

4.00 p.m.

And that is what this is about, not for me or not for you. But this is long,

long history for which an exception was made in the Constitution, that you signed

up for to behave in a particular way, and it constrains you in the House and outside

the House according to the Standing Orders. Facebook “doh” run this Parliament,

neither does Instagram and Twitter. It is these Standing Orders, this little black

book that they give you when you start off here. It is this little black book. And it is

this little black book that has brought us here, Mr. Vice-President, and I believe

that we, on behalf of the Committee, and on behalf of those who have advocated

today for the approval of the Report, have made our case. And those who disagree

are constrained by their political position to disagree. They are constrained and I

understand that fully. I know, I know they cannot exercise their free will today but

on their behalf we, the majority, will exercise our will on their behalf also. I thank

you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping]

130



UNREVISED


Report adopted.

QUARANTINE (AMDT.) BILL, 2021

Order for second reading read.

The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs (Hon. Faris Al-Rawi):

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. [Desk thumping] Mr. Vice-President, I beg to

move:

That a Bill to amend the Quarantine Act, Chap. 28:05, be now read a second

time.

Mr. Vice-President, I ask hon. Members to focus upon the very narrow issue

before us this afternoon on this Bill. This Bill was laid in the House—in this

Senate on Monday and comes up for debate today. It proposes very simply an

amendment to the Quarantine Act. The Quarantine Act, Mr. Vice-President, is a

robust piece of law that has been with us. It is Chap. 28:05. It is an Act of

Parliament, No. 19 of 1944. It was amended twice by Act No. 29 of 1945 and by

Act No. 31 of 1978.

And this Quarantine Act, Mr. Vice-President, is of material concern as it has

come to be used on the occasion of a dangerous infectious disease having been

declared so under the Public Health Regulations a dangerous infectious disease, is

in fact one standing in Trinidad and Tobago in January 2020, the Novel

Coronavirus was so declared.

We have come to understand concepts such as zoonosis the transmission of

disease that comes from animals to human beings. We are gripped with a

pandemic. The world is being asked to balance lives with livelihoods. Today, as I

stand before you, Mr. Vice-President, the Government has issued as a matter of

fact a protocol into the public domain that tells this country via the Ministry of

131

Quarantine (Amdt.) Bill, 2021 2021.07.07

Hon. F. Al-Rawi (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Health’s quarantine protocols for passengers entering into Trinidad and Tobago

effective July 17, 2021, that the Government, pursuant to a decision made and

communicated to the population after consultation with the experts, intends to open

the borders of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago effective July 17, 2021.

The use of quarantine is something which is in effect in Trinidad and

Tobago. We have the Quarantine Act. We have quarantine also under the Public

Health Regulations. And I want to put out on the record that Regulation 9 of the

Public Health Regulations as it stands now, 2021, and Regulation 10 of the same

regulations provide for quarantine. Regulation 9 provides for the consequences of a

breach of quarantine at a public health institution or a designated facility. The fine

for the breach of quarantine under the Public Health Regulations stands at the

maximum of $250,000 and imprisonment of a term six months. It is a summary

offence.

Regulation 10 of the Public Health Ordinance treats with the breach of self-

quarantine where someone has been put into self-quarantine. The breach for that

under the Public Health Regulations, as a springboard coming out of the Public

Health Ordinance, the fine is a maximum of $250,000, imprisonment for six

months; again, a summary offence.

[MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair]

We also have in the regulations, Regulation 11 of the Public Health

Regulations—Madam President, as I welcome you to the Chair—where we say

that a person who contravenes Regulations 5 or 10 commits an offence liable on

summary conviction to a maximum of a fine of $250,000 and six months.

Today, we ask for the Quarantine Act to be amended in two simple sections.

First of all, the Quarantine Act does not have an offence provision for the breach of

regulations. So there is a material shortcoming in the Quarantine Act. Whilst you

132



UNREVISED

can make regulations under the Quarantine Act there is no effective teeth

provided—are no effective teeth provided for breach of the regulations.

I would like to remind you, Madam President, by Legal Notice No. 35, we

issued an order under the hand of the Chief Medical Officer 31 January, 2020,

where we dealt with the quarantine provisions for the Novel Coronavirus Order

2020. In it we provided for infections occurring on board ships and air craft, and

that Order was issued allowing for quarantine provisions to come into effect.

We have issued by Legal Notice No. 111 the regulations under the

Quarantine Act, (Maritime) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, where we dealt with

a number of provisions including deratisation, et cetera, ship sanitization

certificates. These were done in tandem with Legal Notice 186 which dealt with

our Public Health Regulations, that was to allow us to do the simple harmonized

forms and to bring regulations into order. But, Madam President, what we have to

do here today is to take conscious reflection, there is no penalty under the

Quarantine Act for breach of regulations. The regulations are necessary to help us

to operationalize the law, and specifically, the only offence that exists at present

under the Quarantine Act is a very limited offence where for breach of section 7 of

the Quarantine Act you are exposed to a maximum of $6,000 and an imprisonment

for six months.

Section 7 of the Quarantine Act treats with the following:

“Any person who—

(a) refuses to answer or knowingly gives an untrue answer to any inquiry

made under the authority of this Act, or intentionally withholds any

information reasonably required...”—by—“…him” of him—“…by an

officer…person acting under the authority…or knowingly furnishes to

any such officer or”—any—“other person any information which is

133



UNREVISED

false;”

Then we go down in subparagraph (b) where there is a wilful omission

where they do not carry out lawful orders or instruction, et cetera.

In paragraph (c) we deal with the consequences assault, resisting, wilfully

obstructing, intimidating officers. But it is critically important now to harmonize a

breach of these provisions, lift the penalty from $6,000 and six months and we

propose here, as the Bill has been circulated, that we take this penalty now to

$350,000 and we take it to one year. Why? In the context of the public notice today

as to the conformation of protocols for breaches, the confirmation of the protocols

for entry into Trinidad and Tobago, the confirmation being associated with

quarantine provisions for persons who are vaccinated or non-vaccinated, the

protocols have been issued saying when you enter the country.

But we anticipate with the entry of people coming into Trinidad and Tobago

that they will have to document and produce their PCR tests. They would have to

document and speak to the truth and validity of their vaccinations and therefore we

cannot leave the penalty at $6,000 if you tell an untruth to an officer at the point of

entry in quarantine circumstances. This is built into the technology where you will

upload your PCR test before you arrive. It is built into the technology where you

will upload your vaccine information. It is built within the desire to protect

Trinidad and Tobago’s livelihoods so that we can open our economy and have

persuasive provisions in law to ensure that people tell the truth. It is as simple as

that.

So, Madam President, in very simple form, we are asking for the amendment

of section 7 for those purposes. In asking for the amendment of section 7, we are

also bound to also ask for the amendment in law to clause 4. And in section 4 we

simply say—we are inserting in section 4 a new subsection that regulations may

134



UNREVISED

provide that any contravention therefore shall constitute an offence punishable by

summary conviction and we are harmonizing it now with the Public Health

Regulations and the Public Health Ordinance. Those regulations the maximum sum

is $250,000 and six months.

I should add that in 2020 we amended the Interpretation Act. We amended

section 63 of the Interpretation Act to say, if you breach, the Interpretation Act

allows, of course, the ability to issue regulations and it provided for what the

consequence of breach would look like. It used to be that you were exposed to a

whopping $500 for a breach of regulations. We amended those breach of

regulations provisions, section 63, to $250,000 and to six months. So we are asking

for a harmonization of the Interpretation Act, harmonization of the Public Health

Ordinance, as has been amended, bringing the quarantine regulations fine in line

with the Interpretation Act and the Public Health Ordinance by amending section 4

of the Quarantine Act to $250,000 and six months. But very importantly, in

amending section 7 of the Quarantine Act, we are asking for an uplift because we

are talking about the risk to society.

I, of course, need to remind that when we say $350,000 and one year, it does

not mean that every breach gets that. In a summary offence you have the

opportunity of asking under the legislation for a reprimand and discharge. You can

get zero dollars and zero cents, you can get no time, that is up to a judicial officer

deciding what the circumstances are. But because one jacket is not intended to fit

all, the range is allowed and therefore the maximum is the exposure to $350,000

and to one year.

So in summary there is a legitimate aim to this law. We are seeking to

modernize the law. There is a very sincere purpose behind making sure that this

becomes part of the body of Laws of Trinidad and Tobago prior to July17th

135



UNREVISED

because we want to make sure that the opening of borders and the use of

technology that people are consciously aware that if they tell an untruth and risk

the lives of people in this country, you are also risking the livelihoods of people in

this country. I definitely believe the law to be extremely in line with

proportionality in a democracy such as ours. I look forward to contributions of hon.

Members, and I beg to move. [Desk thumping]

Question proposed.

Sen. Jayanti Lutchmedial: Thank you, Madam President. I am grateful for the

opportunity to speak on this very short Bill today to amend the Quarantine Act,

Chap. 28:05, to introduce a new offence, a clause 4—well a new section—

subsection—in section 4 that would give the power under regulations to create the

offence and it specifies a penalty for the breach of regulations and also to amend

the fines for the offences created by section 7.

Madam President, I understand the background and the purpose of this

amendment. We are finally seeing that the illegal and unconstitutional locking out

of citizens of this country is nearing an end and so we look forward to ensuring

that all of the systems are in place to protect us from the entry of particularly new

variants of the COVID-19 virus and so we understand that we must take all

precautions that are necessary.

But, Madam President, when you are looking at the Quarantine Act really

just—and that is what this whole Act is about. It is not about persons who are here

and who need to go into self-quarantine, although it is relevant to look at the

experience we have had with Public Health Regulations and the enforcement of

those regulations and the offences that it has created for people who breach state

quarantine or self-quarantine orders.

But this particular Quarantine Act deals with people coming in on vessels and

136


Sen. Lutchmedial (cont’d)

UNREVISED

aircraft and we—the fines really when you are considering criminal fines, you

want to consider effectiveness, you want to consider proportionality and you want

to consider dissuasiveness. Those are the three components that you really look at

when you are thinking about criminal fines. Now, and then so, I just want to say

very briefly on a few of those things and then I will get to the issue of being able to

enforce these sanctions.

Proportionality, when you talk about proportionality with criminal fines, you

never want to—the means that you choose to employ must not go beyond what is

necessary to achieve the desired outcome. That is the standard for proportionality.

And so when one considers the existing fines, for example, under section 7of the

Act and you see what is being proposed here, this is a—about a 500 per cent

increase. Math “ain’t my ting”, I will tell you that for now but I tried to work it out.

It is about 5,000 per cent moving from $6,000 and an imprisonment for six months

all the way to $350,000 and imprisonment for a year.

Now, I understand the importance of ensuring that people do not refuse to

answer or, you know, knowingly give an untrue answer and withholding

information, because if they do so they may be posing a danger to people in our

society when the re-enter the country. But at a time like this, and when you look at

the offences about false information and so on and what is withholding any

information reasonably required under section 7, it is a very stiff penalty to impose

on someone at a time like this. You are talking about nationals who have been

stranded abroad for more than a year coming back into the country who may, and I

am not saying it is excusable, but may run afoul of one of these provisions, and

you are giving a judicial officer now—

And the Attorney General is correct. It is a range but you are still creating

the possibility of a very harsh and almost oppressive sanction being imposed on

137



UNREVISED

someone who may give—may run afoul of this section. And I do not want to go

through all it but some of it is very subjective.

“…intentionally withholding any information reasonably required…” Who

determines what is reasonable? Who? I mean, I think we have all had the

experience of coming through an airport and sometimes the questions that they ask

you and so on. What is reasonably required? Can someone end up in a situation

where they are accused of knowingly furnishing false information when they do it

by error, perhaps? Or intentionally withholding information as reasonably required

when they do not feel that the question being asked of them is reasonable or when

they are unable to give the answer and that is perceived as being unreasonable.

I had a very interesting experience one time when I went to visit someone at

a police station who was arrested for refusing to give a sample or something like

that. And the person said, “Listen, I have been here for six hours trying to explain

to the police that I am blowing as hard as I can blow into this device for checking

for breathalyzer. And they are not getting a reading. And that is why they are

holding me and they are charging me”. And I thought that was so ridiculous

sometimes. But you see it is so subjective because the allegation and the thing that

the person was charged with was actually just refusing to give a sample because

they believed that the person was refusing.

So some of these offences—and they are—we are not interfering with the

offence itself. The offence is already there and it is in existence but it is very

subjective. And when you have a subjective type of offence like this where it is a

lot of judgment on the part of the person who, you know, determines or who is

asking the question or soliciting the information, such a stiff penalty is something

and the possibility of such a stiff penalty, I think, it may be a little bit excessive.

So, I looked at the Public Health Regulations, I see where certain breaches

138



UNREVISED

under the Public Health Regulations attract a penalty of $250,000—a maximum of

$250,000 or six months imprisonment and I believe that might be a bit more

reasonable in this case for the offences created by section 7 of the Act.

Madam President, and I do not want to spend too long on this because, as we

have said, this is fairly, very simple and straightforward thing. The problem that

we have really with all of these fines, and we talked about it yesterday already with

increases in fines, and so on, is the implementation and the effectiveness of the

fines will never really, you know, we would not see the dissuasiveness that you

want if it is we cannot enforce the fines and penalties.

I have not had a haircut in six months and the reason for that is because in

December I went to the hairdresser and I was sitting there and, kill me dead, the

person sitting on the chair next to me told me that she had gotten one of those

quarantine things to stay inside because somebody in her workplace had tested

positive or something but she fed up of “dem” and she could not take it anymore

and she came to get her hair done. Well, I so promptly left that place and never

went back. And the thing about it is, yes, and about three of them this week asked

me, “Girl, how you looking so?” And that is why I am looking so. Right? Because

I refuse even when the place was, you know, we did not have these restrictions, I

refused because people are not even abiding by the quarantine orders issued by the

Ministry of Health right now and we have a lack of enforcement.

I also have come across many cases where persons ought to be issued

quarantine orders because someone in their house has tested positive for COVID-

19 and the Ministry of Health for sometimes a week, two weeks, not even in

contact with them, they have not given the official order to them. So I decided to

do a little bit of research.

I spoke to a police officer and I asked him. I said, “Listen, when these orders

139



UNREVISED

are being given out by the Ministry of Health and so on”—because I know

someone who got one. And I said, “Are you all checking it? I mean, how do you

know that the person is inside”? And he told me, he said, “Sometimes we get a list,

sometimes we do not, and when we get the list sometimes they tell us go and check

on the people at their house but sometimes they do not tell us. We just wait on

seniors to tell us what to do”.

So the ability of the country to control persons who ought to be in quarantine

to control the information that people are giving, to control the danger to the public

that could be presented by persons giving false information, it really hinges not on

a fine and the threat of a very high fine or penalty but on our ability to properly

police this whole system of quarantine, of orders, of gathering information.

When someone comes in and this is what I would like to hear, when

someone comes in and under section 7 you ask questions and so on and you have

the ability to fine them, and let us say somebody answers all the questions and they

give you the information and so on, who is checking the information to make sure

that it is correct? Do we have the capacity to find out before we could get to the

fine whether or not someone has furnished false information, for example? Do we

have the capacity and are we able to really check that? Because that is what will

make the difference in the lives and the safety of our public. It is the ability to

verify the information.

Now, I agree with assaulting and resisting and obstructing and so on

although again, that is a— I mean, we had a joke at one point in time when, you

know, someone was arrested and you ask, “What they did?” They said, “Well they

did not do anything, you know”. But they got the usual, obscene language,

resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer. You must get “dem three thing”. If

you “doh do nothing” but the police vex with you, “that is the three charge you

140



UNREVISED

getting”. Right?

In fact, I just came for the police station visiting someone who is in a similar

situation, just across the road there. But that is just, you know— When you look at

the penalties that you are imposing here for that, under normal circumstances a

person who is charged with those offences under, I think it is the Summary

Offences Act, what is penalty?—maybe $200,000 or $200 for obscene language,

resisting arrest, all of those things. It may not attract so much of a penalty.

You are looking at someone entering through a port of entry, a legal port of

entry in Trinidad and Tobago, getting into some sort of—not a scuffle, an

alteration or having a difference of opinion with someone at one of these ports of

entry being liable to paying a fine up to $350,000 or a year imprisonment moving

from $6,000 to $350,000 just because, look this is COVID we are dealing with and

we are reopening the borders—not the borders, the airport, we are reopening the

airport and so on. I do not necessarily agree that it is for all of these different

penalties that, you know, for these different offences that it needs to be so stiff.

And so I would suggest that we give some further consideration to that. Perhaps—I

do not know if one of the speakers on the other side or maybe the Attorney General

in his wind-up he can tell us.

Persons who have been given quarantine orders under the Public Health

Regulations, local people, how many of them have been caught so far as breaking

those orders? I know there was one case that I read about. I know that the TTPS

said they are going to ramp up their surveillance and so on but I only know of one

person. I think the person was from Diego Martin who had breached the order and

had left his premises and so on. Now, is it that—is it that only one person who has

been delinquent? Or a few people maybe perhaps? Or is it that we just are not

policing this thing enough? Because without that we are not really going to get the

141



UNREVISED

results that we want.

And coming to Parliament to impose a very stiff fine on someone without

having the effectiveness of it coming back to what we hope to achieve, the

outcome that we hope to achieve really does not make much sense at this point in

time. So with those few words, Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity.

4.30 p.m.

Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you, Madam President. The Bill seeks to amend the

Quarantine Act, Chap. 28:05, and as the hon. Attorney General said, it is amending

section 4 to bring the Quarantine Act in line with amendments made last year to

the Interpretation Act. And of course the Interpretation Act was amended to

provide the breach, that any breach of regulations in any law, unless specifically

stated otherwise, would attract, as we have in this Bill here, a fine of $250,000 and

six months imprisonment.

Now, the Bill that we have before us goes on to amend section 7 of the

Quarantine Act. And, of course, Madam President, you would see where the

Government is increasing the fines and the sentencing period from $6,000 and six

months’ imprisonment to some eight—I beg your pardon, to some $350,000 and to

one year imprisonment. Now, if you go to the parent Act, Madam President, which

is Chap. 28:05, and you go to 7(1), it deals essentially with what the Attorney

General has advised, a situation in which the Government has decided to reopen

our borders and the airport. So the Government is seeking to take certain measures

in these amendments to protect citizens and the country as it relates to personnel

who will be coming through our airport.

Now, I have some areas of clarification I would like the Attorney General to

address in his winding up. Madam President, as it relates to citizens who are

entering our country, we know that the CMO had in fact identified certain

142



UNREVISED

guidelines and procedures. Now, when it comes to the question of quarantining

someone, I wanted the Attorney General to advise us, in his winding up, whether

somebody travelling into Trinidad and Tobago through our airports, particularly

Piarco International Airport, and those persons, Madam President, are negative in

terms of a PCR test, what exactly will happen to those persons when they land in

our country under this new quarantine measure?

So, when you are wrapping up Attorney General, somebody is coming from

the United States, they leave there with a negative PCR test, they arrive at the

international airport, are these people with that PCR test, which is negative, still

subject to a quarantine period, or would they be able to go directly home? So that

is an area, Madam President, I would like the hon. Attorney General to deal with.

Because, like the hon. Sen. Jayanti Lutchmedial, I find the penalties to be

somewhat disproportionate to the offences. I find it very excessive and oppressive.

But I understand what the Attorney General is attempting to do, and this is

Government’s policy as they seek to get Trinidad and Tobago back into some

degree of normalcy.

And in this regard, Madam President, may I ask the hon. Attorney General,

when he is winding up this debate, because this is information that has come to my

attention, and I think we need to clarify the information that has reached us. Can

the Attorney General, in winding up, indicate to this Parliament whether it was as a

result of pressures being brought to bear by the FAA and the transportation

department in the United States, that has forced the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago to reopen the airport—the airports, Madam President, on the 17th of July?

You see, we are very—we have not been given information on this matter. And

because of the matter that we are dealing with, which is the Quarantine Bill, to

facilitate personnel coming into our country, I think it is incumbent on the

143



UNREVISED

Government to clear the air and to advise Trinidad and Tobago whether it was in

any way forced by external forces, particularly in the United States, to allow

American Airlines back here, to allow, for instance, JetBlue back here.

Madam President: Sen. Mark.

Sen. W. Mark: Yes.

Madam President: You have posed the question to the Attorney General, but you

are now expanding on it. And, may I just say that you are veering of course, all

right? The Bill is very specific, and I would ask you then, having posed the

question to the Attorney General, to move on to some other points, please.

Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, I am guided by your good self. Madam

President, as we deal with the Quarantine Act and we deal with the specific

sections, I was minded to look at schedule one, which is the First Schedule and

schedule two, and I saw, Madam President, a section of the Quarantine Act that

dealt with Ebola. The (Ebola Virus Disease) Order, and I was wondering whether

the Attorney General could indicate whether there is any intention on the part of

the Government to insert a provision in the Quarantine Act that would speak

specifically to the COVID-19 matter. Because in the legislation, which is the

parent Act, Madam President, which I am referencing, this section that deals with

Quarantine (Ebola Virus Disease) Order, whether the Government has, in fact,

prepared or is preparing an order, and whether the order is going to be included in

the parent legislation ultimately? Because I am not aware and I am just seeking

clarification, so that matter could be addressed by the hon. Attorney General.

So, Madam President, these pieces, or these amendments, even though as I

said the fines seem to be excessive and a bit punitive, the Attorney General could

indicate, in his winding up, whether the Government is prepared to revisit the

quantum of fines that they are proposing, that is the $350,000 and the one here.

144



UNREVISED

Whether they want to reduce that fine given the severity of it—of them, and if he

could clear the air on the matter I have raised about Trinidad and Tobago airport

being reopened, based not on the fact that the Government has voluntarily decided

to do so, but on the basis of pressures coming from the United States, FAA, and the

Transportation Department. I thank you so very much, Madam President. [Desk

thumping]


Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my hon. colleagues for their

contributions in this House, and I have great pleasure in winding up this debate as

follows. Number one, with respect to Sen. Mark’s enquiry as to whether we intend

to issue an order similar to that as was done with Ebola. In my piloting I

specifically referred to Legal Notice No. 35, which is the Order made in respect of

the COVID-19 virus itself. So that was done under the hand of Dr. Parasram on the

31st of January, 2020. So I just repeat that.

Secondly, in relation to Sen. Lutchmedial’s important point as to

operationalization of this law and whether we can track those who are in breach or

not. I remind that because this is for airport and seaport management, that we are

using an APIS, an Advanced Passenger Information System, where the information

is taken in from a technology point of view up front. I can also say that Minister

Gopee-Scoon has had the pleasure of ensuring that Crimson Logic and other

entities provide us with data and vaccine evidence underwriting, if I can use that

expression, as we go into how the world at large is going to treat with the issue of

proof of vaccinations, et cetera.

With respect to the last point on the Bill itself, which is whether we would

be minded to adjust the $350,000 down to $250,000 or some other figure. If I may

explain why the Government is resolute on the $350,000 and one year, it is

145



UNREVISED

because we need to distinguish between a breach of regulation and a breach of the

Act. Because section 7 deals with the breach of the Act, we are proposing that we

go at a higher mark than a breach of a regulation, because a regulation is subsidiary

legislation and therefore ought to be treated from a proportionality point of view at

a lower marker.

The Interpretation Act, breach of regulations is $250,000; the Public Health

Ordinance, breach of regulations is $250,000; the Public Health Regulations, the

breach is $250,000. Therefore, to keep in parity, and with a degree to

proportionality, the breach of these Regulations issued under the Quarantine Act is

proposed to be at $250,000, so says the amendment to section 4 that this Bill

proposes. And in relation to the breach of the Act itself, we are bound from a

legislative drafting and policy point of view to slightly lift that, and therefore the

maximum that is proposed is $350,000 and one year.

As I end now, I reject, of course, the usual conspiracy theory advocacy

offered by my friend Sen. Mark, there is no compulsion here in any form or

fashion, the Government indicated its position a long time ago via the press

conference that the hon. Prime Minister held several Saturdays in a row, that we

intended to a phased roll out and reopening of the economy. I want to remind,

Madam President, this is the third time we will be fully reopening the economy in

progressive stages. This is not the first time. It is why we have managed ourselves

as efficiently as we have. What I can say as I come to a close now, is that the

Government is very mindful of the distress that our citizens are under, of the

hardship and pain that this pandemic has caused. We are all anxious of getting out

of this. I want to say, Madam President, with the passage of 350,000 first jabs in

the arms of citizens, as of today, we are making excellent progress, and I want to

congratulate the Minister of Health and the entire team of professionals and

146



UNREVISED

volunteers who have worked in this regard, as we march our way back to

normalcy. I have faith, Madam President, that we will get this right, and I beg to

move. [Desk thumping]


Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate.

Senate in committee.

Madam Chairman: Attorney General, are you ready?

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Senate resumed.

Bill reported, without amendment, read the third time and passed.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE

AND POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY) BILL, 2020

[Second Day]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on question [July 05, 2021]:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question again proposed.

Madam President: Those who have spoken on the Bill, well, the only person to

have spoken so far is the Attorney General who is the mover of the Motion. Sen.

Mark.

Sen. Wade Mark: Thank you, Madam President. I rise to address a Bill: “to

amend the Special Reserve Police Act, Chap. 15:03, the Police Complaints

Authority Act, Chap. 15:05 to strengthen the operations of the Police

Complaints Authority and its relationship with the Special Reserve Police

and matters related thereto.”

Now, Madam President, these matters of the Special Reserve Police as well

147

Miscellaneous Provisions (Special 2021.07.07

Reserve Police and Police Complaints

Authority) Bill, 2020 (cont’d)


UNREVISED

as the Police Complaints Authority, are issues that are of deep concern to not only

the Senate, but I would say the very SRPs in question. Madam President, if you

can look at the particular clause 2 of the Bill that I have before me, you will see

where in that clause, the Special Reserve Police Act, Chap. 15:03, first became law

in 1946, some 75 years ago, is being amended by inserting after section 22 of this

Act, something, a new section, Madam President, called section 23, and it reads

that:

“Regulations made under the Police Service Act are deemed to be applicable

to any matter concerning serious police misconduct by a member of the

Special Reserve Police and shall apply mutatis mutandis until such time as

the relevant Regulations are made in accordance with section 22.”

Now, Madam President, when you go to section 22 you will see where the

regulations were supposed to be made by the Minister of National Security since

1967. So, Madam President, we are talking about roughly 50 years later, there are

no regulations governing the Special Reserve Police officers falling under the

Special Reserve Police Act. Now, Madam President, if you look at 22 of the Act,

you will see in subsection (2), (e) and (f) respectively, the following:

“The discipline and guidance of the Special Reserve Police;”

Meaning that:

“(1) The Minister may make Regulations generally for giving

effect to the provisions of the Act.”—and—

“(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred

by subsection (1), Regulations made under that subsection

may provide for—

148





UNREVISED

(e) the discipline and guidance of the Special Reserve

Police;

(f) the setting up of Disciplinary Boards to investigate

breaches of discipline and to award punishment, if

necessary, and the powers and duties of the Disciplinary

Boards;”

That is among several other regulations outlined in section 22 of the Act. What this

Government is seeking to do is to bring the Special Reserve Police officers under

the Police Service Regulations, which would fall under the Police Service Act.

Now, Madam President, we are very concerned about this development, and

I will tell you why, Madam President. Madam President, the SRP Act is very

important, and the officers who serve under this Act are under a lot of stress. So,

Madam President, in 2001, an attempt was made by the then Attorney General,

Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, to amend the Special Reserve Police Service Act by

amending section 8 of that Act to ensure that the definition and the qualification of

a Special Reserve Police officer is defined. This was attempted in 2001.

Madam President, that Act of 2001, or Bill, sought to define the

qualifications and appointment of a Special Reserve Police officer. One: to become

a Special Reserve Police officer one had to be a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago.

One had to be over 18 years of old—18 years of age, I beg your pardon. I beg your

pardon, 18 years of age. I beg your pardon.

“(c) is of sound health and mind;

(d) is of good character; and

(e) possesses at least—

149





UNREVISED

(i) three…”—CXC passes and, also—

“(ii) three General Certificate of Education passes…”

So, Madam President, this was attempted in 2001, but we did not get very

far with it. So, Madam President, what is the result? The result is today the Special

Reserve Police officer can enter the Special Reserve Police force with the

following criteria behind him: His name, no passes, and basically a certificate of

good conduct. We understand, Madam President, that there are thousands and

thousands of Special Reserve Police officers in the Special Reserve Police force

today. Many of them, Madam President, may I advise, some of them I should say,

are not citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, but they are police, special reserve

officers bearing arms and having the same power as the police officer in the

regular police service. Madam President, something has to be wrong with that.

Madam President, do you know that Bajan police officers came to this

country and they were incorporated into the Special Reserve Police as Special

Reserve Police officers? Madam President, do you know that there are lawyers

from the United Kingdom in matters involving—in matters before the courts who

have been recruited as Special Reserve Police officers. Madam President, I bring

these things to your attention to let you know that something is fundamentally

wrong with the arrangement that currently exists as it relates to these police

officers. That is, the Special Reserve Police.

So, what the Government is seeking to do, Madam President, is to bring

these police officers, Special Reserve Police officers who commit what has been

described in the Act, or the Bill before us, who have committed serious

misconduct, and when we go to the Police Complaints Authority Act you will see,

150





UNREVISED

Madam President, there is a definition of what is called “police officer” and

“serious police misconduct”. Madam President, if you go to the Police Complaints

Authority Act on page 8, under the interpretation section, it says that:

“‘Serious police misconduct’ means the commission of a disciplinary

offence under the Police Service Regulations which the Authority considers

to be so serious as to bring the Police Service into disrepute;”

So this is what, Madam President, a “serious police misconduct” means.

That is the definition. Madam President, what the Government is seeking to do

here is this: the Government is seeking to allow police officers who are recruited as

SRP to be subject to the same regulations as the regular police officers. That is

what clause 2 attempts to do.

5.00 p.m.

Madam President, may I advise, my information is that a Special Reserve

Police officer is subjected to eight weeks of training; four dealing with theory and

four dealing with practical training, whist the regular police officer is subjected to

six months of intense training. That is the first distinction I need to identify.

The second distinction deals with the salaries and benefits. Madam President,

the SRP starts of at 4,000. They are part-time, they are full-time and they are

temporary SRPs. The police officer is in a different grade and receives a different

level of salaries as a regular police officer. The SRP does not receive, Madam

President, a pension. The regular police receives a pension. The SRP does not,

Madam President—

Madam President: Sen. Mark, I really have to interrupt you just to ask you where

you are going with this.

151





UNREVISED

Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, I am trying to develop—

Madam President: Hold on, hold on. I have given you a lot of time to try and

make your case and tie up what is in this Bill with what you are saying. You are

giving a discourse on Special Reserve Police, regular police, and I am hearing

everything about them but nothing is tying up with what is in the Bill. I need you

to do that, please.

Sen. W. Mark: [Inaudible]—if I may ask for a little understanding, because I am

dealing with clause 2, that is the point I made very early. I am dealing with clause

2 with the regulations and I am saying that—

Madam President: And Sen. Mark, you have gotten 16 minutes of my

understanding, 16 minutes. So what I am asking you—I know you are dealing with

clause 2 but I need you to just tie in what you are saying with the Bill, please.

Sen. W. Mark: Madam President, what I am arguing here is simply this. You

cannot put the same SRP that is not on the same level as the regular police officer

given the distinction and the differences in their terms and conditions of

engagement and the distinction that it relates to training, and subject them to the

same regulations that you have for the regular police officers. That is the point I

am seeking to make here. We are trying to bring a measure to put the Special

Reserve Police officers and make them subject to the regular Police Service

Regulations. And I am arguing something is fundamentally wrong with that,

Madam President, because a Special Reserve Police officer does not enjoy the

same benefits as an ordinary regular officer.

And, Madam President, more than this, I am arguing that if you look under

the Special Reserve Police Act, you will see in section 6 how these reserve police

152





UNREVISED

officers are selected. Who appoints these SRP? Under section 6 of the SRP Act it

says, Madam President:

“Subject to the general order and directions of the Minister, the

Commissioner shall have the general command and superintendence of the

Special Reserve Police, and he shall be responsible to the Minister for their

efficient condition and for the proper carrying out of this Act.”

Madam President, the regular police officer is appointed to his position by

the Police Service Commission, although today that power has been devolved to

the Police Commissioner but that power is supervised by the Police Service

Commission. So therefore, what I am arguing, Madam President, is simply this.

Something appears to be wrong in seeking to put the Special Reserve Police

officers under the regulations of the regular police service when these Special

Reserve Police officers do not enjoy the same arrangement, whether it is benefits,

whether it is appointment, whether it is training, whether it is qualifications. So

that is the point I am seeking to submit for your consideration.

And, Madam President, what is even more serious here is that under the SRP

Act, the Minister plays a very crucial role in appointing or recruiting or selecting or

identifying Special Reserve Police officers. And this is where the politicization of

the police, that is the SRP, is very important. And I would have thought, Madam

President, that instead of seeking to put the Special Reserve Police under the

regulations of the regular police service, through its regulations, what the

Government would have done is to take a policy decision, as was taken in 2000, to

absorb the Special Reserve Police officers into the regular police service of

Trinidad and Tobago, and bring about what is called a level playing field and allow

153





UNREVISED

these Special Reserve Police Officers to enjoy the same terms and conditions.

Another area of concern, Madam President—and there are judgments that

have been issued by the Privy Council on this matter. Madam President, we are

saying that when you are guilty or you—not guilty, Madam President. If a serious

charge or a charge is brought or levelled against a police officer for serious

misconduct, the question I want to ask the Attorney General is this. You have

different ranks in the SRP up to senior superintendent and they have divisions, like

we have divisions in the regular police service. So, Madam President, we are

talking about discipline and we are talking about regulations and we are talking

about serious misconduct. I would like to pose a question, Madam President, can a

Special Reserve Police officer head a tribunal to investigate a regular police officer

who is charged or who is facing a charge of serious misconduct in the police

service? I am asking this question because there are Privy Council judgments that

says that the Special Reserve Police officer is not a regular police officer. And in

those circumstances, how can we bring regulations, how can we put the Special

Reserve Police to be subjected to the same regulations as those of the regular

police officers?

So, Madam President, something is wrong with what the Government is

attempting in clause 2. And I am raising these issues because this thing could end

up in court. Because we are talking about disciplining personnel under the SRP and

we are mixing them up, Madam President, with the regular police. These are issues

that require clarification and answers from the Government.

Madam President, there are other areas I would like to address and that has to

do with the Police Complaints Authority and we also have definitions and

154





UNREVISED

insertions of new office holders who would be able to assist in the area. That is,

Madam President, if you go to clause 3 dealing with the Police Complaints

Authority, you will see where there is an area that I would like to bring to this

honourable Senate’s attention. And that has to do, Madam President, under clause

4 of the Bill, let us go to 44A; 44A says that—and, Madam President, you have to

go—to follow this properly, you have to go to the Police Complaints Authority

legislation because it is inserting after 44, a new 44A. So if you go to the Police

Complaints Authority, you will see under 44 where:

“Upon the conclusion of an investigation, the Authority shall make an

assessment and form an opinion as to whether or not the subject matter of a

complaint—”

And they go on to say (a), (b), (c) and (d). And it goes on to say, Madam

President:

“The Authority shall, in writing, immediately inform the person who

made the complaint and the police officer concerned of the action

taken and the reasons for such action.”

What the Government is seeking to do is insert after this 44(3), a new

provision, a new clause that states:

“The Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be,

shall, within three months of the Authority making a recommendation

in accordance with section 44(2), provide the Authority with—”

The following:

“(a) a written decision, with reasons, on any action which has been taken or is

proposed to be taken or not taken, in respect of a recommendation; or

155





UNREVISED

(b) a written update on the progress of a matter which is the subject of a

recommendation.”

Madam President, the question that is being asked here is this. Can a person—

in this instance, can a director or deputy director of the Police Complaints

Authority, under section 44A of these amendments, can you have a director

directing the Commissioner of Police, which is an independent office, to carry out

instructions as is outlined in this amendment? Because in 44A:

“The Commissioner”—of Police—“or the Assistant

Commissioner…”—of Police—“shall…”—Madam President, this is

mandatory—“within three months of the Authority making a recommendation

in accordance with section 44(2)…”—they must—“provide…”—to this—

“Authority…”—which is the Police Complaints Authority—

“a written decision, with reasons, on any action which has been

taken…or a written update on the progress of a matter which is the

subject of recommendation.”

So, Madam President, that is the second area that we would like to have some

clarification on. Can the director of the Police Complaints Authority instruct or

direct the Police Commissioner to submit a report to him, the director, within a

certain period of time, when under 123 of our Constitution, the Police

Commissioner is an independent office holder? This is an area, Madam President,

we would like to have some clarification on because we have doubts about it. It

may be correct but we would like to have this clarified. If the Commissioner

refuses, what sanctions, Madam President, can be imposed on the independent

office of the Commissioner of Police? That is not spelt out in the legislation. So it

156





UNREVISED

is an area, Madam President, that we would like the Attorney General to clarify for

this honourable Senate.

Madam President, we are also seeing where the municipal police is also

involved. And when it comes to discipline, we see that the Police Service

Regulations is also going to be applicable to the municipal police service. But the

only difference this time, Madam President, in clause 3(iii)(a) is that we are pulling

the Municipal Police Service Regulations into the picture.

So the disciplinary aspects dealing with serious misconduct will not only be

guided and regulated by the Police Service Regulations, but it is also going to be

regulated by the Municipal Police Service Regulations. So we have the Police

Service Regulations, we have the Municipal Police Service Regulations. All of

them, under the purview of the service commission, which is the Police Service

Commission, that would then be responsible for addressing matters dealing with

discipline involving Special Reserve Police and now we are hearing that the

regulations—the municipal regulations will be also in the mix, in the brew.

So, Madam President, the question that I want to raise and ask is this: Why

has the Government not brought the regulations to govern the Special Reserve

Police in Trinidad and Tobago? Why? Madam President, it is almost 71 years later

and this force—and this is another matter we would like the Attorney General to

clear up for us. What is the real size and strength of the Special Reserve Police

force? We are getting all kinds of figures.

Madam President, is the Police Service Commission and the Police

Complaints Authority that is going to be saddled with more work when these

amendments are passed, is the Government looking at providing the Police Service

157





UNREVISED

Commission and the Police Complaints Authority with more human resources?

Because you are asking them to take on more responsibilities. And, Madam

President, what is the true figure? Can somebody tell us what is the true story, what

is the true number of Special Reserve Police officers in Trinidad and Tobago

today?

We have been getting figures of upward to 7,000; some people have told us

6,500; some people have told us 8,000. And what we have, Madam President, in

Trinidad and Tobago, as we seek to bring the Special Reserve Police officers under

the regulations of the Police Service Commission under the Police Service Act,

you have a large number of police officers under the Special Reserve Police. And

therefore, another area we would like the Attorney General to clear up for Trinidad

and Tobago is the exact strength of the Special Reserve Police force.

Madam President, we are advised that persons who are desirous of

becoming—

Madam President: Sen. Mark, you have five more minutes.

Sen. W. Mark: Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we are advised

that if you would like to become a Special Receive Police officer and you have

some experience in hockey, in football, in cricket; if you are a businessman, if you

are a lawyer, if you have retired from the army, the coast guard or even the police

service, Madam President, you can be a candidate for the SRP.

Now, Madam President, these are matters that we would like to have cleared

up. We would like to know whether the Government is seeking regularize the SRP.

We would like to recommend before we move towards putting police, Special

Reserve Police, under the Police Service Regulations, we would like to recommend

158





UNREVISED

to the Government that they take a decision, a policy decision to absorb the police,

the Special Reserve Police officers, into the regular police force or the police

service. And allow these officers who do the same work as police officers, who

carry out duties and responsibilities and take risks just as the same regular police

officers, bring them under the regular police service.

Madam President, it is wrong to have these Special Reserve Police officers

who are going to be placed under the clause 2 of this Bill, that is under the Police

Service Regulations, for serious misconduct. You can bring them before the Police

Service Regulations to deal with serious misconduct but you cannot give them

equality of treatment as it relates to pension rights, overtime arrangement and

absorbing them into the police service as regular police officers. That is wrong and

we are calling on the Attorney General, the Government of this country to absorb

these police officers as the regular police officers, that is the SRP.

Madam President, in closing, if we are not careful, we are going be faced with

two parallel police services in Trinidad and Tobago; one headed by the SRP and

one headed by the regular police. And if our information is correct and there are

over 6,000 Special Reserve Police officers in this country and another 7,000

regular police officers, we have two parallel police services in our country. This is

something that is not practical, it is untenable and we need the Government to pay

attention to this matter.

And finally, Madam President, amend the law and do not allow the Minister

of National Security to determine and to have any role whatsoever to play in the

recruitment of special police officers. That must be a job only for the

Commissioner of Police and not for the Minister of National Security. That will

159





UNREVISED

politicize the police and the Special Reserve Police, and they must be independent

and they must operate autonomously within our arrangement in Trinidad and

Tobago. Madam President, I thank you so very much for allowing me to say these

words. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Dr. Varma Deyalsingh: Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to

present on this Bill to amend the Special Reserve Police Act, Chap. 15:03 and the

Police Complaints Authority Act, Chap. 15:05. And this is really to strengthen the

operations of the Police Complaints Authority and its relationship with the Special

Reserve Police, and to be able to bring the Special Reserve Police into the same

standard and disciplinary proceedings as regular police, to ensure against abuse of

power, self-enrichment, et cetera.

And you know, Madam, police have tremendous powers to stop, search and

to enter homes. And the fact that, you know, most times when an average citizen of

crime—average citizen is a victim of crime, they need the police, they call for the

police. So they need that police to come and do their best for them, they need that

police to come and, you know, have that faith in the police service.

Madam, when I was a small boy, my nanny used to tell me if I misbehave, she

would call the police for me. I used to fear and respect the police. Now a lot of

persons—and I still do—a lot of persons are not afraid and are disrespectful of the

police, some do not trust them. So we need to bring back the pride into the police

service, the respect to the hard-working officers in blue by going after the bad

apples and this would in fact help some of those SRP officers who tarnish the

image of the police. This would help to probably allow the police to reclaim the

once glory or position of esteem they had in our country.

160



Authority) Bill, 2020

Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh (cont’d)

UNREVISED

So, Madam, officers again have a tremendous duty to protect, to bring

comfort and to seek justice, restore faith in our nation and I think while most of us

are asleep, they are out there doing their work. So we need to put things in place

that even though they have the power to exercise, you know, like search, come into

homes, power to arrest, that power that they have, they also—we need

accountability, oversight, we need checks and balances, and this piece of

legislation does bring this.

Madam President, the Police Complaints Authority also has a major role to

play, along with a free press and now social media, and also we can—Gary, as we

have a number we can call. So any sort of infraction, any sort of positions we are in

that we find that an SRP or municipal police is not coming to mark, what we

expect them to do, we have methods that we can go. Even there is an internal

department in the police service that have the internal investigations.

But, Madam, it was found that the Police Complaints Authority needed to be

out there, needed to be developed and it needed to be independent of the police

service because it found that a lot of police officers may have, you know—there is

something called batch loyalty. So if a police officer has to actually somehow do

some sort of disciplinary activity with their own members, you may not get the

best ability because batch loyalty is something, Madam, we have it in medicine,

persons who work together in casualty, we see mistakes, we help one another, we

have that sort of comradeship. And even when we come out there, at this age, we

will still be very—that bond is still there.

So therefore, does our police need to be scrutinized under this Act? I think

yes. Our present Commissioner of Police said a lie detector test was needed to

161





UNREVISED

weed out bad cops. The late Patrick Manning wanted to bring in Scotland Yard, we

got Canadians coming in. Even Randolph Burroughs in his day spoke about

narcotics squad. In the narcotics squad, he had members, bad apples there who

were also out to get him and get him out of the way. So even the police might have

to be somehow brought in to a sort of activity, be it SRP, be it municipal police,

where we can get them to be under the scrutiny of the PCA because the Police

Complaints Authority, that is their function.

5.30 p.m.

Madam, the Police Complaints Authority had asked for more powers, and if

we go back to their reports from all these years, from 2016, the Police Complaints

Authority had asked for various increases in their powers to go after money, look

at the SRPs, and some of those were already given. I think last year, in this same

Parliament, we had increased some of these powers which I will mention soon. So

therefore, we are still seeing activities where we have to cautious of police

accusing police of having kidnapping money in their desk drawers; St. Joseph

Police Station, there were things found in their roof, articles like guns and drugs;

and recently police arresting police allegedly from stealing from a drug dealer. So

there is a need.

Madam, my fellow Senator recently in an Express article, if you would

allow me to read an article on January the 28th, Camille Hunte, “T&T a corrupt

society”. Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye as she was addressing Transparency

International mentioned, there are customs officers and police officers whose

lifestyles are well beyond their pay rates, giving the impression of corrupt

activities. So internally we have seen the need to scrutinize these officers,

162





UNREVISED

externally too. The HMICFRS, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and

Fire & Rescue Service, had a report of Trinidad that was not very—I should say it

was uncomplimentary to our police service and evidence. And I want to quote one

report matter which will go into the fact that the Police Complaints Authority

needs that additional power.

There was the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Madam, issued a

report on the 29th of April, 2004, captioned, “Trinidad and Tobago: The extent of

crime and corruption within the police force; the government’s response to

criminal activities and incidents of corruption by members of the police force in

Trinidad, included the effectiveness; the protection available to witnesses...”—a

very long caption, very long heading. But in that research, the Director of

Immigration and the Refugee Board of Canada, when they looked at our police

service and what they saw, they also found that there was a shortcoming whereby

the PCA “ability to dismiss officers was limited”, so definitely, internal criticisms,

external criticisms, external recommendations. And I think today, what we have

come to do is somehow give the PCA more power to be able to go after the errant

SRPs that are there to at least to be able to get our faith in their service. And it is

not just Trinidad, Madam.

I remember when I was younger, there was show called Serpico. Serpico

was a—I think it was Al Pacino acting as a New York cop and that was after a real

movie. So Serpico was actually a hit in my time when I was younger and it really

spoke of a real corruption that occurred in New York by a New York cop. He had

allegations of corruption against his fellow cops and he went public, and that led to

what you call the Knapp Commission to investigate his claims. And the Knapp

163





UNREVISED

investigation also, just as how we are trying to do here, suggested increase in

sanctions, increase in techniques, where you could weed out those cops.

So therefore, Madam, I would say that I welcome this. I have seen even in

today’s Express, Madam, there was an article alluded to the fact that an SRP had in

fact shot one of his neighbours in some sort of an altercation. So it was in today’s

Express. And even before I remember last, I think in 2016, an SRP officer was

involved in going in South and actually there was a raid on some Chinese national,

stole money, they went with some police vehicles, and he was held. So therefore,

without this present legislation there are still means and methods where we can

discipline them. Because that SRP then was actually from the San Juan substation

and he was actually brought before the court, and they had him—somehow he

got— I think that case went to full where he was also held responsible. So we have

had instances where the SRPs were also taken care of in the laws, those who

actually swayed.

Now, Madam, this legislation that comes today, it looks at really three

things: the power to discipline the SRPs; the powers that the PCA asked for; and

also the fact that the municipal police to get them into this Act where you could

have a little more control of them. So looking at the SRPs, Madam, I must say that

we have to look at the parent Act, and in the parent Act there was actually already

disciplinary punishment there given in section 5 of that Act. And in that Act,

Madam, we had instances where if an SRP under section 5 of the parent Act, if you

have—

“(1) Every member of Special Reserve Police who commits

any…offences”—such as—

164





UNREVISED

“(a) insubordination;

(b) wilful disobedience of lawful order;…

(d) absence from parade drill…duty without leave”—also:

“(e) making away with”—or—“selling or

losing…carelessness…damaging uniforms property…”

And also part (f) of that would also say:

“…any act, conduct or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline

or in violation of duty”—to—“his office, or any other misconduct as a

member of the Special Reserve Police…”

So they already had some levels of discipline and actions that you can

punish. In that Act you also had duties that you had to—if you had infractions,

there were some fees and fines there. And, Madam, this Bill now seeks to bring the

SRP officers under the system as regular police officers, and subject to the Police

Service Regulations of 2007 which deals with disciplining the officers, you know,

also similar as they may discipline the police officers, so now put the SRP under

that level.

So we look at this part of this new legislation and it serves to look at serious

misconduct also. So serious misconduct seems to be something that the PCA seems

to want to have some control over, and even though this Act gives the Minister of

National Security the powers to have the regulations, to add on things, he never

did. And as Sen. Mark did mention, it was probably a lapse, it was probably—the

duty was not there, it was not the drive. So what we are doing here today could

have been covered if the relevant Minister would have passed a similar regulation

that was also included in the Police Service Act. So when I looked at this, yes we

165





UNREVISED

have the duty to go after these SRPs from before, but we are now expanding it a

little bit.

Now, Madam I just wanted some clarification when the Attorney General is

closing, what is “serious misconduct”. Because I mean you have to—it is so vague,

that term, that are we going to get some clarification about this term, you know the

serious misconduct, what is it, what could it be? Remember once the police

officers themselves had a gridlock and lockdown, is that serious misconduct? I do

not know. We may have to get some clarification on that.

Madam, the figures I got of SRPs was about 4,300 and around 76, around

there, 380, and it is a lot of persons, and if these persons are now going to be

factored in into the PCA’s now realm of being able to scrutinize them, the Police

Complaints Authority may need additional staff, may need additional funding.

Because not only the SRPs that would now be going under their purview in a

greater sense, but also the police in the regional corporations that we are now

expanding. The municipal police that you know, I think the number is around 800,

and I think it is going up to 14,000. I am not too sure of the numbers, but the fact is

we are thinking about increasing the municipal police. We have again to factor in

that we need more allocations of more funds into the Police Complaints Authority.

Madam, the SRPs by themselves, they perform a very important function,

because if you realize, the SRPs when they came on board, they were actually

members of the community, upstanding members, who would want to come in and

assist the police service. So it was persons who would really be willing to come in

and give of their self, and this started as that and it now evolved. It has now

reached to the level where we are looking at SRPs coming in, as Sen. Mark

166





UNREVISED

mentioned, persons from Barbados, who will come in here and fall under our

jurisdiction by appointing them SRPs. Remember, we also had when we looked at

the Act of the FIU and we realized that accountants and lawyers who are trained in

following the money, they could also come under this Act and also be factored in.

So the SRPs were supposed to be a four-hour week job, weekend activity,

public citizens who want to serve, and it grew, and because it has grown, we

realize now they play an important role—a very important role. If I see a police

officer coming to my house, I would not know if it is an SRP or a regular police,

but I presume they would have the same powers, they would have the same arrest

powers, and all that powers that go with that. But as Sen. Mark said, the training

would be different, the salaries are different. And even the perception of the police

officers of the normal force to the SRPs was something I was amazed where, what

I should call the regular police officers would sometime look down at the SPRs.

They may think they are substandard police, and I have seen that coming where

they would even say they are like the outside child. They are not real police. They

do not have the training. They do not know how to shoot properly. And you get

that, what I should say, resentment from the SRPs, and what I could say the regular

police service. So that existed.

So when I look at this, I realized that what we are doing here is bringing

these SRPs up to this standard so they will now be judged in a standard just as their

regular police. Bringing them up to that standard now, you know they may have sat

down before and say, “Well, you know, I am not going to be judged as the same

standard as the regular police so I will be able to get away with certain things”.

Now they cannot get away. Now they are now in the same sort of a—they will be

167





UNREVISED

judged along the same way and this, you know, could work in our benefit. Because

you see the SRPs would not tend to have any batch loyalties as some of the other

police officers, and if the punishment is the same, they may decide to say now well

you know I may go down with guy just as him and I may be more willing to come

out in any sort of investigation and sing, and open my mouth and say what really

transpired instead of having that silent batch same loyalty.

So, Madam, I also took what Sen. Mark said that the SRPs, yes they are

coming under this legislation, and I think that it is only fair that they also be

considered an increase in salary because they are in fact doing a lot good service in

this society.

Madam, I would like to look at look at clause 3(a) of the Bill proposes to

amend section 4 of Police Complaints Authority Act by the inclusion of the new

definitions, and the new definitions is really inserting a new definition of

“Assistant Commissioner” which would mean “Director or Assistant

Commissioner of” the “Municipal Police”, and it was really trying to get these

police officers who have to answer to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, to get

them into this whole fold of legislation again. And again, if I looked at the clause

of the Bill, there is a clause where the definition of “police officer” is changed

where you know you changed the municipal “force” and substituting it with the

word “service”. So there is now a revised definition. I do not know what is the big

deal in that, but at least probably the Attorney General could mention it. So a

member of the Municipal Police Service established under the Municipal

Corporations Act, so we are now calling them “service” I think instead of the Act.

Madam, these new amendments of these definitions would be able to capture

168





UNREVISED

the municipal police and the SRP into a wider net where the Police Service

Commission could now be able to discipline more, clean up the service, make it a

better service for all, and themselves. And the Municipal Police Service

Regulations, the Authority actually considered it to be a serious issue where they

wanted to widen that net, and this was seen in a recommendation, I think, since

2016 and then in 2020. Right now, we have about 854 of these municipal police

officers and it is going to expand to 1,500, and if that is so, there would be more

interactions with the public. And if there is more interaction with the public, there

would be a greater chance of some sort of mishap, some sort of disciplinary

proceedings must be taken into fact, and this takes into account Government’s plan

to expand this service in the corporations. And I think it is commendable that we

have factored this in to try to get them up to the same standard, same judgment,

same sort of scrutiny as the regular police, because they would be interacting with

the public and they would need to know that they are being scrutinized better.

Madam, the powers of the PCA. The PCA came about to actually look at

any sort of corruption, any sort of discipline that you have in the service. Now,

they look more at the ranks of the Police Commissioner, the Assistant Police

Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Police himself could discipline the other

ranks under him. So whilst we have the ability for the PCA now to look at the

functions of the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, you know in their

2020 report, they had asked for a change. They had asked that they be given more

powers, and Mr. David West, I think at the time, he had problems where he found

that the PCA, they went ahead, did a lot of work, they did a lot of investigations,

and when the handed their reports into the Police Commissioner, when they

169





UNREVISED

handed into the DPP’s Office, it was still there years after. So Mr. David West had

some concern and I mean, this is a man I admire, and I admire him because his

history from where he worked shows he has that vast experience. Remember this

gentleman had worked in the Office of the DPP, you know. So he was in the Office

of the DPP, he was also in the FIU, and he was also the Head of the Central

Authority Unit, the CEO at the Ministry of the Attorney General, so his experience

is there.

So he is an individual who could really see, how could we get an

improvement. His powers he saw, and his authority, Police Complaints Authority

he saw, they were doing some work, they were giving in that work, but somehow

they were not getting an answer that the cases they put forward were being held in

an expeditious manner. And he actually in a press conference made some

comments you know that he wanted to go further. He wanted to let his unit get

actually, hoping his unit could get more power. Just as how you had the Canadian

system, you have the Special Investigative Unit, the SIU in Canada, which is a unit

that actually it is not just involved in prosecution. It is not involved in prosecution,

but it goes to the point where charges are laid.

So Mr. West had mentioned that he would have hoped that his unit could

have developed further and given more power. Now, we cannot overstep the

function of the DPP. As we know the DPP by the Constitution is the one who can

really instigate criminal proceeding, but in the past he did work with the DPP. I

think it was under the fiat where he got certain permissions to carry across his

investigation up to a limit, and he actually worked with the DPP. And you see, this

is the nice thing about this gentleman, with his experience in working in different

170





UNREVISED

agencies like the DPP’s Office where he was the state prosecutor, by his ability to

work in the FIU, he was able actually to follow the money of certain police

officers. He was able to use that experience to at least go after certain officers who

he thought was exceeding their limits in terms of how they are working, working

outside duties and what not.

So he now with his wisdom asked for more power. He in his wisdom said,

listen, I have reached a stage, we have given evidence many times, we give our file

to the DPP, he is busy, there is some delay, he has staff constraints, financial

constraints, and he wants to be able to investigate the matter also. And also he even

mentioned that he probably wanted to charge also, but again this is a matter with

the DPP and him. He cannot overstep that bound. But you know the Police

Complaints Authority, Madam, has to be a buffer between the irate public accusing

the police and police shootings. Remember the arrest we had when four men were

shot in the Beetham, these things—

Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh, if I may, you need to tie in what you are

saying with the Bill. You were speaking to the Bill and now you veered off to give

a lot of information about the Authority. I would like you please tie in what you are

saying with the provisions of the Bill. Okay?

Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh: Thank you, Madam. Madam, what I was trying to get at

is that the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, Mr. David West, had

made recommendations in the past, and some of these recommendations that we

looking here in this Bill are recommendations which he made. And the fact is the

Attorney General, in his wisdom, did in fact take on some of the other

recommendation that Mr. West asked for, because Mr. West had asked also in the

171





UNREVISED

past that the Coroners Act, he wanted to be included and we did. I think it was in

December last year include where he could sit in. He asked for more powers in the

Evidence Act, and again we had also included the PCA under the definition of law

enforcement for audio visual recordings. He had asked for the Financial

Intelligence Unit Act of Trinidad and Tobago to ensure that the Director of FIU

can forward to the authority any sort investigations for investigations, any report.

So that link is there that he asked for. The Income Tax Act in section 4(2) also.

So, things he had asked for whereby the Authority can be listed among

parties to whom the Board of Inland Revenue can disclose income tax return, all

those are things that he had asked for and I think he had got some measures made

to that effect in the sense that we passed legislation here for that. He had also asked

now in his 2020 report to widen the definition of “serious police misconduct” and

this is what we are doing here. He had asked now to deem the Authority

constituted with one member. This is what we are doing here again. He had asked

again to impose the duty on the Commissioner to provide a written decision with

reasons to the Authority within three months. And again, this is what we are

attempting to do here, where in this Bill before us we are looking to see if we can

widen those, somehow give him what he had asked for.

So therefore, when I looked at clause 3(b) of the Bill which seeks to amend

section 7 of the Police Complaints Authority Act, where that new section would

read:

“A person appointed by the President as Director or Deputy Director shall

have at least ten years’ experience as an Attorney-at-law, and may be

appointed...”—selected—“from within the Commonwealth.”

172





UNREVISED

This clause 3(b), Madam, I have a little concern with that. While we are looking at

3(b) here, it seeks to amend section 7 of the Police Complaints Authority Act

where the qualification of Director and the Deputy Director. So the new

amendment as I just read where:

“The person appointed by the President as Director or Deputy Director shall

have at least ten years’ experience as an Attorney-at-law, and may be”—and

we are now deleting “appointed”—“and may be selected from within the

Commonwealth.”

Good! So I have no problem with the deleting of the “appointed” and substituting

“selected”. What I have a problem with is why are we keeping it in the

Commonwealth? Because I mean, just recently we have another Bill passed here,

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, where we are expanding to non-

commonwealth countries, and I am thinking if there is a capable person who can

assist in the Police Complaints Authority, we should not geographically limit it to

the Commonwealth. So this is something I have a concern about.

Also, the Authority deemed to be constituted with one member, section 7,

that is clause 3(c) of the Bill, it seeks to amend the Police Complaints Authority

Act, and this is something that the Police Complaints Authority actually asked for

because they had mentioned that sometimes they may have had to be working

without a Deputy Chairman because of persons leaving the job and they wanted

that period where they would be able to still be constituted properly with one

member for a period not exceeding three months. So “where the Director or the

Deputy Director dies, resigns, is removed from or otherwise vacates his office”.

Again, this is really for the functionality of the Police Complaints Authority. They

173





UNREVISED

asked for that and I think there is not a problem here, I think, where we were trying

to give this. Clause 3(d) of the Bill looks at inserting the words “Municipal Police

Service” after the word “Service” and I mentioned that before, this is something

they had also suggested.

Madam, the other concern I had here with this Bill is that a similar concern

that Sen. Mark raised. Sen. Mark raised that there was the fact that we are now

asking the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner to report to the Police

Complaints Authority, and you see we have to try to appreciate that the role of the

Police Commissioner is in the Constitution and he has that independence, and I am

wondering if somehow by us now giving him that duty where he has to report to

this committee, would we now be somehow breaching any sort of, you know,

constitutional breaches we would be making by us having to put on him and put on

the Assistant Commissioner that duty to report within that period of time?

Madam, there is no—I think it was out in the public domain before that there

was a high talk between—there was crosstalk and tit for tat between the Police

Commissioner and Mr. David West before on certain matters where the PCA had

given out certain guidelines to do and the Police Commissioner resisted and there

were known articles. I could just put one, July 09, 2020: “PCA’s West: We did

nothing wrong”, where he had to actually defend himself when he asked the

Commissioner to suspend officers and the Commissioner said well, it should have

come before us and there was some little disagreement there.

There was another disagreement where I want to quote, August the 25th,

2020, the Express, “PCA and its director disciplined by Gary”, where again you

found that there was a difference of opinion when the PCA directed that certain

174





UNREVISED

manners, the Commissioner investigate the Assistant Commissioner of Police. So

those things were in the public domain and it does not augur well because if the

Trinidad criminal or the errant police officers see this, this tit for tat, they may

think well they can get away with anything. So somehow we have two figures

there. I admire the present Commissioner of Police. I think he is a man with great

knowledge. He has the country at heart. He has also—I think he has an 80 per cent

rating rate that people said that they approved of him. So, there you are you have a

gentleman who was the Minister of National Security, he knows the ins and outs.

He knows what he wants for the country. He is asking again for the unit, the Naval

Unit of the police.

So you have two individuals now, one in the Police Commissioner’s seat,

one in the PCA, and both individuals may have to work together for the country.

And you see this legislation, even though we have this part, I am wondering, would

this cause any sort of a bad blood between, somehow occurring. Because already if

you had this in the public domain and now you are trying to say that you want to

have the Commissioner of Police now answer, you may have to realize that it may

cause some sort of a angst where this comes about. Clause 3(e) I think it was,

where you have to try to within three months report to the Police Complaints

Authority.

Now, Madam—

Madam President: Sen. Deyalsingh, you have five more minutes.

6.00 p.m.

Sen. Dr. V. Deyalsingh: Thank you, Madam. So, Madam, remember the

Commissioner of Police is now duty bound if this is passed and I am thinking if

175





UNREVISED

somehow this part may have to be revised in the sense that he could do it as his

duty “I am going to have a more efficient service and I am going to give this as

suggested” rather than to try to put any sort of guidelines on him to say you have to

do it in that matter of time. So this is the only concern I had, with that now cause

more problems.

Now I see the need for the PCA to know what is happening with their cases,

to get answers because they have to answer to the public that, okay, we came and

saw a police shooting but nothing is being done, it is held up at this place. So I see

the need for the PCA to see what is going to happen to their cases and I also see the

need for the Police Commissioner to see if he can probably give it probably

without this piece of legislation here.

Madam President, I also looked at the fact that the—part of this Act seeks

that if you wanted any sort of a feedback, the Police Complaints Authority was

suggesting that the municipal police which falls under the guidance of the

Assistant Commissioner will give them that feedback. So I see this as a matter of a

hierarchy breach because in the medical field, we have a consultant, a registrar,

house officer and you cannot tell a registrar to go and report to somebody else, the

chief of staff without going through his consultant.

So, by you now putting in this piece of legislation that the Commissioner

and or Assistant Commissioner is now in a way subjected to the Police Complaints

Authority and it also gives some reasons where the police, well they could actually

ask the Assistant Commissioner for information and I got the impression without

going through the Commissioner of Police. I think if that is so, this is something

that needs to be corrected because anything you are asking the Assistant

176





UNREVISED

Commissioner should as a matter of hierarchy go through the Commissioner of

Police.

Madam, I would like to say that this Bill, if we get it to work better, we

would get a better service in terms of the SRP. They will now know that they have

to perform better, they will now bring in people under the guidance of the PCA

which will be able to monitor those persons. And I think, really speaking, we have

people at heart at two top positions there and if these men would put their

differences aside, if they could work together for the benefit of the country, I think

history will judge them on what they have achieved in office. Thank you, Madam

President.

Sen. Anthony Vieira: Thank you, Madam President. It has been a long day, I hope

not to be too long on this Bill which weaves together three strands aimed at

plugging a couple of administrative gaps and the tightening of some key

definitions.

The first gap relates to the Authority’s inability to investigate complaints

against special reserve officers. Last week when debating the gambling and betting

Act, we looked at the provisions relating to authorized officers who could enforce

compliance under the Act and as Sen. Mark pointed out, authorized officers can

include persons appointed under the Special Reserve Police Act which allows the

Commissioner of Police to appoint any male person who is over the age of 18,

abled-bodied and of good character to be a member of the Special Reserve Police.

Now this has proven to be a useful and convenient mechanism which has allowed

for lawyers, forensic accountants and civilian experts who are not career policemen

to be clothed with the authority of a police precept.

177





UNREVISED

The Special Reserve Police Act provides for disciplinary punishment where

such officers are insubordinate, have willfully disobeyed a lawful order, have been

negligent or have acted to the prejudice of good order and discipline or they may

have misconducted themselves or acted in violation of duty. Things that

conceivably could happen. For example, when conducting enquiries under the

gambling and betting Act which as one might recall allows officers, authorized

officers to enter premises, to examine machines and equipment, to question any

person on the premises, to copy records, documents and information, to remove

and retain anything, which they reasonably believe is being used or has been used

to commit a crime.

My understanding is that at present, there is before the Police Complaints

Authority 60 complaints against the officers of the Trinidad and Tobago Police

Service and 40 complaints against Special Reserve Police officers. Now that is a

high number of complaints but the Authority’s hands are tied insofar as it relates to

investigating complaints against the Special Reserve Police because there is no

mechanism for disciplining these officers when they run afoul of the Police Service

Regulations. So, Sen. Mark has raised on-point concerns and they are exactly why

we need these amendments because you may have complaints against Special

Reserve Police officers who are not from here, they are foreigners and it will be a

way of guarding against the politicization of the SRPs. This Bill will address that

anomaly. It seeks to ensure consistency of treatment for all arms of the police

service, whether regular police, municipal police or Special Reserve Police where

serious police misconduct is suspected, alleged or complained about.

The Police Complaints Authority is a specialized independent agency and as

178





UNREVISED

we all know since 2006, the PCA has been providing yeoman service towards

avoiding the perception of arbitrariness, bias, immunity or special treatment in the

handling of complaints against the police. The Authority has promoted

professionalism, consistency and fairness in the conduct of its enquiries and I

believe it has earned the public’s trust. So accordingly, I do not think anyone can

or should have a problem with this amendment especially since it provides for

consistency in the law and will be an important part of the disciplinary eco-system

which requires us to have robust procedures in place for disciplining all, not just

some, rogue or errant police officers.

The second problem which this Bill seeks to solve or ameliorate relates to

the situation where the Authority is constrained to suspend on-going investigations

and is unable to sign off on recommendations each time the Director or a Deputy

Director of the Authority dies, resigns or has had his appointment revoked. As one

would appreciate, this can impede and it will unnecessarily delay the Authority’s

day-to-day operations and such a situation does not serve anyone's best interest. It

would be frustrating for both complainants and respondents.

Clause 3(c) establishes a holding provision which allows the Authority to

seamlessly carry on its functions without undue interruption when the Director or a

Deputy Director is missing in action by deeming the Authority to be properly

constituted for no more than three months while a replacement is found.

The third gap being plugged in the parent legislation is the requirement for

the Commissioner of Police or the Assistant Commissioner of Police to provide

written reasons on actions taken or not taken in response to the PCA's

recommendations as well as to provide progress reports. Well, I do not see what

179





UNREVISED

the problem could be there. Certainly, I do not agree that this is in any way a

breach of the Constitution. It is not in any way telling the Police Commissioner or

the Assistant Police Commissioner how to decide, how to act. All this is asking is

the requirement for the provision of written reasons as to why you did or why you

did not do something in light of our recommendations. And in fact, this adds

transparency and it mitigates against inertia, it mitigates against the avoidance of

the implementation of the PCA's recommendations. So again, I do not see how

anyone can have a difficulty with officeholders being held to account or being

required to act in a transparent manner through the provision of updates and

written decisions.

Clause 3(e) expands section 26 in two ways. First, it enables the PCA to

investigate complaints coming to them from the Police Service Commission and

that is obviously a gap in the parent legislation, we are just closing that gap so that

the Police Service Commission, if it says “Well look, we have picked up

something”, they can send it to the PCA and now the PCA can act on it. And

secondly, it allows the PCA to conduct investigations into officers serving in the

Municipal Police Service. Again, that picks up so that there is no disparity. The

PCA now can investigate all arms of the police.

Sen. Deyalsingh asked about well why are we changing from “force” to

“service”, I do not have a definitive answer but it strikes me that this is really a

branding exercise and it is meant to facilitate changes in the approach and attitude

of the police. The word “force” is the only 19th Century paradigm of projection of

control and might. In the 21st Century, we do not want to be talking about control

and might, we are talking about protection and service so “service” I think is the

180





UNREVISED

new paradigm.

So as mentioned at the outset, the purpose of these amendments is to address

administrative gaps in the parent legislation and to correct imperfections that have

arisen in practice. None of this should be controversial. Madam President, I thank

you. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Hazel Thompson-Ahye: Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to

contribute to this debate on an Act to amend the Special Reserve Police Act, Chap.

15:03, the Police Complaints Authority Act, Chap. 15:05 to strengthen the

operations of the Police Complaints Authority and its relationship with the Special

Reserve Police and matters related thereto.

I have a particular interest in this Bill I must say. I once served on the board

of the Police Complaints Authority. It was a pleasure and an honour for me to

serve but it was also a challenge. From my first meeting, I realized that something

was wrong with the structure, with the legislation. Our dependence at the time on

the Police Complaints Unit to investigate reports brought against police officers by

fellow police officers, you know they were investigating their colleagues, seemed

reminiscent of a line in Spoiler’s calypso “he self told himself he not guilty”.

In addition, there seemed to be a lack of understanding by some key players

of their role of the scheme of things. I recall this guy, pun intended, coming to our

meeting and thinking he was in charge and the Chair was a gentleman, Jim, so I

ask when I could not understand what was going on: Do we have an agenda and if

so, were we at AOB? The guy was livid with rage at my playing David to his

Goliath. He was unfamiliar with the proverbs “little axe cut down big tree” so he

glared at me and “ah give him ah good primary school pupil cuteye” until he

181




Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye (cont’d)

UNREVISED

simmered down to some semblance of calm.

Now, I am talking about 23 years ago when the tension between the role of

the Commissioner of Police and the Police Complaints Authority was there. Police

Commissioners, they are accustomed giving commands that must be obeyed and

they balk at anybody trying to exercise authority over them and their men in black,

save perhaps, maybe the Minister of National Security. But with you coming forth

as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in

battle array. In the end, the Commissioner and myself developed a very warm

relationship. The last time we met, just before his demise, was at UWI graduation.

Everyone was giving him a wide berth, so the row of seats in which he sat was

virtually empty. I went and I sat with him and we thoroughly enjoyed each other’s

company. But even in those days, we had difficulty with delays in getting

information, delays in getting feedback, updates and investigation of police by the

police with the level of thoroughness of investigations.

The Police Complaints Authority had been complaining even then that they

had no teeth. The old 1993 law under which we were operating was repealed and

new legislation was enacted in 2006 to hopefully, among other things, make the

PCA more independent of the police. But the Police Complaints Authority still

complained that they have no teeth. A story by Renuka Singh, popular first name

in this Chamber, in the Trinidad Express of May 16, 2018, bore the headline:

“‘Toothless’ PCA wants more power”

And I recall when Justice Lucky was the Director, she would be advocating all the

time for strengthening of the PCA. A Commissioner of Police once complained

that he was “ah toothless bulldog” and I recall a joke making the rounds in Port of

182





UNREVISED

Spain about a police officer calling the home of the then Commissioner of Police

and his longsuffering wife saying “the dog came, the dog bark and the dog left”. I

did not think it funny because the job of Commissioner of Police is a tough one. It

is full of stress and at the end of the day, the stress goes home with the man. It

takes a particular kind of man to want this job and even a more special man to be

successful in attaining their goal. So let us see what happens.

Now, I have no problem supporting most of the clauses in this Bill. It

embodies recommendations that were made by the Police Complaints Authority in

their 2019 Annual Report which they gave to all of us. It is an excellent report I

must state. The recommendation made in clause 2 to amend the Special Reserve

Police Act to extend the Police Service Regulations to the Special Reserve Police

is necessary. Special Reserve Police are included in the definition of “police

officer” in the Police Complaints Authority Act as it stands now. You cannot leave

unregulated an arm of the Police Service as it can become uncontrollable and be

unaccountable with benefits come burdens.

Clause 3(a)(i) of the Bill seeks to fill some gaps in the existing law for

practical administrative reasons so Assistant Commissioner means Director or

Assistant Commissioner means municipal police. And clause 3(a)(ii) seeks to

modernize the law to change police force which is an antiquated term is changed in

the Police Service Act. So now we are making sure it is all through including the

Municipal Police and Special Reserve Police. So, we have not been using police

force for some time. A few still have the same uncouth behaviours and some

people think they get more force from the police than service but it is the Police

Service. Clause 3(a)(iii) makes it clear that the charge of serious police misconduct

183





UNREVISED

under the Police Service Regulations is applicable to members of the Special

Reserve and Municipal Police and that is fair enough.

Clause 3(b) changes the word “appointed” in line 2 to “selected” and in the

circumstances, that is the correct term. Clause 3(c), (d), (e) and (f) are all practical

consequential changes what I would term “tidying up” operations. So that is all

very well and good. Then we get to real bugbear, the Director’s bugbear, his bête

noire. Clause 3(g) which seeks to amend section 44 of the parent Act. Section 44

states:

“Upon the conclusion of an investigation, the Authority shall make an

assessment and form an opinion as to whether or not the subject matter of a

complaint –

(a) has or may have occurred;

(b) is or may be occurring;

(c) is or may be about to occur; or

(d) is likely to occur.”

Clause 44(2) states:

“The Authority may, based on its assessment or opinion under

subsection (1) recommend whether consideration should be given to

prosecute any person for a criminal offence or invoke disciplinary

proceedings against any person, and make recommendations for the taking

of any other action that the Authority considers appropriate.”

Clause 44(3) states:

“The Authority shall, in writing, immediately inform the person who made

the complaint and the police officer concerned of the action taken and the

184





UNREVISED

reasons for such action.”

The Bill before us today now is proposing to amend section 44 to read—section

44A(1) is going to be that:

“The Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be,

shall, within three months of the Authority making a recommendation in

accordance to section 44(2), provide the Authority with-

(a) a written decision, with reasons, on any action…taken or

is proposed to be taken or not taken, in respect of a

recommendation; or

(b) a written update on the progress of a matter which is the

subject of a recommendation.

(2) Where three months under subsection (1) has expired and the

Authority has not received a written update on the progress of a

matter, the Authority may request such further updates as it may

require.”

And:

“(3) Where the Authority has received a written update under this section

and requires further updates in respect of the matter, the Authority

may make such further requests as it requires and the Commissioner

or the Assistant Commissioner shall so provide.”

Madam President, the language of section, it is conciliatory, it is gentle.

There are no sanctions for failure of the Commissioner to act. He may thumb his

nose at the PCA and say by his action “later fuh you yes”. Why is this? And

seemingly, the answer lies in the supreme law of the land, our Constitution,

185





UNREVISED

seemingly. Section 123A(1) states:

“Subject to section 123(1), the Commissioner of Police shall have the

complete power to manage the Police Service and is required to ensure that

the human, financial and material resources available to the Service are used

in an efficient and effective manner.”

Section 123A(2)(b) says:

“The Commissioner of Police shall have the power”—to

“(b) transfer any police officer;

(c) remove from office and exercise disciplinary control over police

officers, other than an officer referred to in section 123(1)(a).”

And 123A(4) states:

“In the performance of his functions under this section the Commissioner of

Police shall act in accordance with the Police Service Act and the

regulations made thereunder.”

But we tend to forget the first part of this particular provision.

But I just want to draw your attention to Goal 16.6 of the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development Goals because you know were trained in the Parliament

that we must always look to see how the Sustainable Development Goals and so fit

into our work that we do and that goal says to:

“Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”

As it stands, we have created a police service, we have created a Police Complaints

Authority. Are these institutions, as they stand now, effective, accountable and

transparent? It is important to have the Police Service independent and not subject

to political and other influence but what of accountability and oversight? These are

186





UNREVISED

important principles.

Recently, the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights made a call for efforts to

be made to strengthen the Police Complaints Authority to ensure it is effectively

able to oversee the actions of Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and they urge

the Government to prioritize strengthening the Police Complaints Authority’s

capacity to expand its oversight ability of police conduct. They considered that

increased oversight of police conduct was necessary to hold the Trinidad and

Tobago Police Service accountable and to reestablish trust in the TTPS and the

Government’s ability to maintain peace and security to all citizens of Trinidad and

Tobago. Because when people perform, the institutions perform as they ought to,

especially people like the police, we feel that there is a sense of peace, we feel that

there is security in the society.

So, Madam President, the Council of Europe—because this is not a problem

that is just for Trinidad and Tobago. So the Council of Europe “Report On Police

Oversight in the Council of Europe Countries” because they have problems all

over Europe and all over the world. They published in 2015, Europe publishing

that is, an article that listed the key principles developed by the European Court. So

they went through all the judgments of the European Court and they pulled from

those judgments of the Court what constitutes—what are the important principles

for police oversight.

The first one was:

“• Independence; no institutional or hierarchical connections between the

investigators and the officer subject of the complaint, amounting”—

therefore—“to a real, practical independence;”

187





UNREVISED

So that is why we had problems with Police Complaints Unit because they were

part of the Police Service and then we were able to hire private investigators and

that is what is happening now. It must be adequate. So we have:

“• adequacy: the investigation should be capable of gathering evidence to

determine whether police behaviour complained of was unlawful and to

identify and to punish those responsible;

• promptness: the investigation should be conducted promptly and

expeditiously in order to maintain confidence in the rule of law;”

So we cannot have a situation with nothing happening for a year and more. Then

we have:

“• public scrutiny: procedures and decision-making should be open and

transparent in order to ensure accountability; and,

• victim involvement: the complainant should be involved in the

complaints process in order to safeguard his or her legitimate interests.”

Madam President: Sen. Thompson-Ahye, if I may, all that you are presenting,

can you relate it to the Bill specifically please? Okay?

Sen. H. Thompson-Ahye: Thank you. So the proposed amendment, as I was about

to say, arises out of a concern for promptness and effectiveness of the PCA. This is

what 44 is about. For the Commissioner to respond in a timely manner so that is

why they are putting the three-month provision in response to allegations of police

misconduct in light of the principles in law created to preserving the independence

of Police Commissioner.

Now, my concern is what happens if the Police Commissioner at the end of

the three-month period that the PCA is requesting fails to provide the PCA with his

188





UNREVISED

written decision or the written update of the progress of the matter. What if at the

end of the further extension for the period for the updates that the Director is

asking for, the Commissioner still has not complied? Should this state of affairs

continue ad infinitum? Is judicial review a feasible option? Some thought so.

What are the provisions under the Constitution which gives power to the

Police Service Commission? The powers of the Commission are subject to section

123 of the Constitution and the section 123 states:

“The Police Service Commission shall have the power to—

(c) remove from office and exercise disciplinary control over persons

who are holding or acting in the offices specified in paragraph (a);

(d) monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the discharge of their

functions;

(e) prepare an annual performance appraisal report in such form as may

be prescribed by the Police Service Commission respecting and for

the information of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of

Police…”

So the Police Service Commission can exercise its power under any of the three

provisions quoted above for the Commissioner to respond to the PCA because the

Police Service Commission has oversight. Whether it is has the courage or

willingness to do so is another issue.

Now the Jamaican law, the Police Public Complaints Act, provides that:

“Where, on review, the Authority is not satisfied with the

disposition…”—and—“considers…further inquiry is warranted, it may—

(a) prepare and send to the Minister, the Commissioner, the

189





UNREVISED

Director of Public Prosecutions a report in writing setting out

such findings…and…

(b) request the Commissioner to conduct…

(c) …its own further investigation…; or

(d) institute a hearing…

(4) On completion of the investigation…the Authority shall prepare

and send to the…”—DPP—“the Minister and the Commissioner a

report in writing setting such findings and recommendations with

respect to the complaint as it thinks fit…

4.—(1) Where the Authority decides to institute a hearing pursuant

to”—that—“paragraph…it shall send…notice in writing of the decision to

the Minister, the Commissioner…the Director of Public Prosecutions”—

and—“the constable concerned…”

A paper entitled “Police Accountability in the Caribbean: Where are the

People?” by Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director of Jamaicans for Justice

concludes that:

“‘external control of the…”—Jamaica Constabulary Force—“is mostly

ineffective’…”

And she examined oversight of the police in several Caribbean countries and found

the position was the same right through the Caribbean. And in the final analysis,

she recommended that:

“There must be adequate ‘scaffolding to support a new framework’…”

And she saw that:

“…the best place to look for ways to improve…accountability—would be at

190





UNREVISED

the level of the design of the universal and ubiquitous creature, the Police

Service Commissions.”

So that is what we are looking at that can happen. Look to the Police Service

Commission. And Barbados Police Complaints Authority Act speaks about the

powers of the DPP and the Police Service Commission. Jamaica Police Public

Complaints Act speaks about authority and send to the Director of Public

Prosecutions, the Minister and the Commissioner a report. And in section 90 of our

Constitution states that:

“(3) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power in any case in

which he considers it proper…

(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings…”

So, the Director of Public Prosecutions has that power.

6.30 p.m.

The Bahamas says that, you know, you have the Police Complaints

Authority and the Police Service, and you have, in all the circumstances, what

are we going to recommend to our Director that he should do, that the

recommendations made by the Authority under section 44 be sent, not only to

the Commissioner of Police, but also to the Police Service Commission and the

Director of Public Prosecutions for their attention and action.

At present the Director of the PCA, as he states on page90 of his annual

report, sends his report to both the Commissioner of Police and the DPP. So it

seems the Police Service Commission is the best option. Under section 30 of the

Police Complaints Authority Act, the Director, at present, sends his report to the

DPP for his action, but he can also send the recommendations to the Police

191





UNREVISED

Service Commission.

Now, the hon. Attorney General, in presenting this Bill, said no aspersions

have ever been cast on the character of the DPP. Now, in the last Parliament I

must say allegations were made. I defended the DPP. And it turned out the DPP

was not even in the jurisdiction at the time when this situation that was

complained about occurred, and he knew nothing about it.

So, Madam President, in preparing for the debate I did heed the plea of the

new Chairman of Caricom, Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and

Barbuda, and I travelled around the region, though virtually, and I have

mentioned the laws in Barbados and Jamaica, and conclude with St. Lucia, with

the words of hon. Calixte George, Minister of Home Affairs and Internal

Security, when he activated the St. Lucia Police Complaints Commission. He

enumerated the benefits of a police oversight body thus.

“This initiative”—he said—“will achieve many positive returns.

The Police Disciplinary process will be transparent and important strides

will be made in rebuilding public confidence in the police. This in turn

will contribute to the achievement of the community policing objective of

building partnership between the police and our…

Police officers will be held accountable and responsible for their

actions in a more timely manner. Transparency and partnership with the

community will be stressed. Public confidence and trust in the police will

increase. Internal disciplinary procedures will be enhanced and

accelerated, resulting in a more just process for the police officers and the

public. Corrective action resulting from decisions will be expedited.”

192





UNREVISED

So it is in the interest of all of us in the society that we do what we can to

assist the Police Complaints Authority to do what it is supposed on to do. And I

thank you.

Madam President: Sen. Lutchmedial. Sen. Lutchmedial, am I correct in hearing

that you will only be five minutes?

Sen. Jayanti Lutchmedial: Yes, please, Madam President. I would not be long

at all. Madam President, I will skip all the fancy things and I will get straight

down to it.

Madam President, I just have a couple of questions and areas that I want

some clarification on, specifically with clause 2 and the amendment to the

Special Reserve Police Act. I notice that Regulations 136 and 150(2) will apply,

and these are in relation to the Police Service Regulations. If the Attorney

General could just clarify in his winding up, why it is that the whole of

Regulation 150 would not apply. Because for me in order for it to read properly,

subsection (1), perhaps, ought to be applicable as well. Subsection (1) in the

Police Service Regulations states that an officer who contravenes any of these

regulations commits a disciplinary offence. So to apply subsection (2), which

lists all the disciplinary offences and not subsection (1), to me, would lead to a

bit of an anomaly there. So that is the first thing that I just wish to raise.

Madam President, the other clause that I am dealing with is really the

clause that provides where either the Director or the Deputy Director dies,

resigns or is removed from office. Now, I have a little bit of a concern there,

simply because—and I went back to the debate in 2006 when this Act was first

introduced to establish the PCA, and I did not see anything specific. But to my

193





UNREVISED

mind the establishment of the PCA and its constitution comprising two persons,

really, is a check and balance on each other.

So I just want to suggest for consideration, that rather than give a

three-month period where, for example—and I am not saying it is an intention or

whatever—but where the possibility exists that one of these office holders be

removed surreptitiously, perhaps, and the other one has three months within

which no one is appointed and can act on their own, you can open up the PCA

to, perhaps, litigation, judicial review, whether the person has acted properly or

not, because that check and balance that is intended and is deliberately placed in

the Act, would not exist.

So I want to suggest that perhaps a provision that deals with the

appointment of someone to act in one of these positions be inserted in the PCA

Act, because according to the PCA—I found this useful documents—“Ten facts

on 10 years”, something that they published 10 years after they were established.

They said that they have about 10 legal counsels at the PCA. So there are more

than sufficient resources in the PCA and persons who may be able to be

appointed to one of these positions to act and to preserve that check and balance

where you have two persons making decisions within the PCA.

Very quickly moving on, where you have the PSC—we are bringing the

municipal police under the remit now of the PCA. And I agree with that. All

persons who exercise police powers, they should be subject to the oversight of

the PCA. But I, on reading the Police Complaints Authority Act, “Commission”

is defined as the Police Service Commission. And under section 30 of the Police

Complaints Authority Act:

194





UNREVISED

“The Authority may conduct a preliminary investigation to

assist…”—and “…identify…”

—and so on, and they could make recommendations to the DPP, the

Commissioner or the Commission for further action. Now, from my

understanding, when it is a criminal offence they will send the information to the

DPP, but if it is a disciplinary offence, when they are dealing with police officers

alone, they will send it to the Police Service Commission, and that is how the

Commission is defined here.

But municipal police officers are appointed by the Statutory Authorities

Service Commission. So I think the definition of “Commission” in this Act

needs to be amended as well. So that “Commission” is no longer just Police

Service Commission, but also, in the case of the municipal police, who they

have to send the report to the Statutory Authorities Service Commission,

because they are the ones to exercise disciplinary control over municipal police

officers; they appoint them and they have the disciplinary function, and I think

they have regulations in place for disciplinary proceedings.

And beyond that, Madam President, I just want to—I think Sen.

Deyalsingh mentioned it, but I wish to endorse the point, that the police service

operates in a very rigid hierarchy system. So that section 44, where the

Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner can give reasons, and so on, on

the decision, I do not agree with that. Because it cannot be that in a police

service that operates on a hierarchy, we are authorizing an Assistant

Commissioner of Police to give a report to an external body without the

knowledge, consent of the Commissioner of Police. And that is how this reads,

195





UNREVISED

that either person can give that report to the PCA.

It is a bit unconventional for anyone to legislate that the Police

Commissioner should report to someone else, but I do understand the challenge

of the PCA in not getting feedback. And based on that I will come to my last

point, that if feedback is so important, then simply saying that they can ask for a

progress report, really does not solve the problem. Because in another place

when I was there, and we had reports being sent to the police and we ask for

updates and there was a mandatory requirement for feedback, the feedback was

investigation ongoing, investigation ongoing, investigation ongoing for a period

of time.

So what I would suggest is for a more effective section that we say that

maybe, perhaps, they provide reports every three months until the investigation

is completed, closed or charges are brought or something like that. Because that

way the police now who are in receipt of this information and all of the work

that the PCA has done and put into their report that they send to the police—

because a lot of times there are other bodies expending resources to do very

detailed investigations, and then they send it on to law enforcement and it stays

there and it goes nowhere. So we really want a proper clause here that would

require or that would make it mandatory that the police continuously update the

PCA on their progress, and I think that it might go a bit further to say that they

send these requests every three months and not put the burden on the PCA to

constantly keep requesting and just receiving requests such as investigation

ongoing. And I think someone else raised it as well. Because with the way it is

worded here, if they do not send the updates to the PCA there is really no

196





UNREVISED

sanction, and it would be difficult to conceive what a sanction could be on the

Commissioner of Police if he refuses to provide an update to the PCA.

So, something like a repeated or a periodic-type reporting may actually go

further in us accomplishing the aim and the objective of this section of the PCA

keeping progress of its report. Those are my contributions, please, Madam

President, thank you.

Madam President: Sen. Nakhid. Sen. Nakhid, I understand that you, similarly

are going to be five minutes.

Sen. David Nakhid: Yes, very short. In the name of God most gracious, most

merciful. Thank you, Madam President. Welcome back. And, yes, I intend to be

also brief.

Madam President, there are some—this Bill does raise some unanswered

questions, and I will get to the heart of the matter. And I believe always, and I

have it on record, and I repeat, hon. AG seems to be very hardworking, but

again, I feel that the Bill could be a bit more surgical. And I would like to focus,

as some of the Senators did before, on clause3(f), which creates a new section

44A. And I must ask the question, and it has been alluded to: What really is the

purpose of the clause if there is no sanction? And, of course, the clause places an

obligation on the Commissioner of Police to keep the PCA updated on a matter

where they have made a finding or recommendation. But what really is the

sanction should he fail to comply? And it has been said before, but there must be

a meaningful, a workable sanction, to ensure more effective compliance with the

dictates of the Bill. There must be. And I will go into that a bit further.

So we have a request. Is it that they will request, when it does not come

197





UNREVISED

they will request further updates? Is that it? Well, I mean, what does that really

achieve? And in the course of my research, I saw that a former Commissioner of

Police said that—I think it was Jules Bernard—“It renders like a toothless

bulldog”, was his words I saw.

So let me try to bring home the impracticality of this amendment by way

of a real-life example. We have the example, real-life, of three unarmed civilians

that were shot in Morvant a year ago. Caught on camera; PCA investigate it;

made a recommendation. With this new amendment, what can the PCA do to

ensure that their findings or recommendations are acted on? If we are to go by

this amendment, all they can do is ask for updates—that is all they can do—on a

matter that drew national attention. Is that achieving anything but creating doubt

and suspicion in the minds of the citizenry, if justice is to be achieved, especially

by poor and working class people? I mean, this was a killing caught on camera,

Madam President, and after one whole year not one officer has been charged.

We had in America—which got attention and traction here; for some

reason we seem inextricably tied to America more so than our own country—we

had the killing of George Floyd at around the same time. Officer had been

charged, tried, and convicted. Here we have not even charged anyone. So how is

this Bill going to remedy that?

This Bill, actually, what it does, it gives the police the opportunity—I

would not like to say the power, because that might impute some improper

motive, but the opportunity—to drag a case on ad infinitum. And the PCA, they

have no resort. They cannot do anything about it. They can ask for further

updates.

198





UNREVISED

And I know we always hear talk about conspiracy theories, and so. But in

a service like the police service, at least the legislation must leave no doubt as to

the intent. It must be that tight. It must be that restrictive and targeted and

surgical. It cannot be loose. Even—and I heard mention of it—the DPP, he

cannot do anything either. So we are here debating a Bill that is basically a lot of

grand-charging. Basically, as I said before, there is no really grit to it, that can

bring a tangible result.

In my opinion and my suggestion, respectfully, we should be debating a

Bill that gives strict time frames for both investigation and charging. How about

that? Would that not be something novel? We should even consider bringing a

Bill that will give the DPP, since I know the country has a lot of confidence and

trust in him and his office, maybe wider powers in cases like this, where we do

not give the police the opportunity to stretch the case on and on. That is another

suggestion.

And then we can even give an example, again, of the so-called Rock City

five in Laventille, in 2018. In that time, five people were killed and there was

not a lot of hullabaloo, because everybody was concerned with crime and

everybody assumed once you come from Laventille, from Picton Road, you

know “wha’ ah mean, they expendable”. No problem. But how are we to bridge

that disconnect, that mistrust that exists between rogue officers, not the whole

police service the rogue officers? How are we able to bring that trust back

between the common man and the police service, if the police service has the

opportunity, or the rogue officers, to abscond from their duties? In the case of

Rock City five, three years, no charges.

199





UNREVISED

Madam President: Mr. Nakhid, if I could remind you, you did give an

assurance about your time, and you are now going into eight minutes. That is

fine. I know you are going to wrap up soon.

Sen. D. Nakhid: Yes.

Madam President: I just want to ask you, please, to use your time to deal with

the Bill at hand. Okay? So tie in what you are saying to the Bill at hand. It is not

a general discussion on the Police Complaints Authority. It is a discussion on the

amendments in this Bill here. Okay?

Sen. D. Nakhid: Guided, Madam President. So to tie up, I believe, as a

suggestion, we could be debating, making amendments possibly, to the Act

dealing with the coroner’s inquest. Because in this particular time it takes 10

years between the submission of a file and a ruling. So for me it is about

legislating timelines that would be more beneficial to the population.

And this is my last suggestion. I am advised, in my research, that we have

three very experienced criminal attorneys who are now attached to the PCA. I

looked at the case of a former Police Inspector, Michael Seales and saw that the

PCA does not have the power to initiate a private prosecution against a police

officer, as was done with Seales. Why do we not amend the Bill to possibly give

the PCA that power? It would not take away from the power of the DPA under

section 90 of the Constitution, to take over where he has the right to take over

and discontinue the prosecution or even intervene and continue if he found it

favourable. Private citizens have the power to initiate private criminal

prosecution and sometimes there is intervention from the DPP.

And my last point. So if private citizens have that power, why can we not

200





UNREVISED

amend the law to give the PCA a similar power, especially when they have the

experienced lawyers employed within their ranks to say do so?

Madam President, we must attempt, finally, to bridge that gap and we saw

it done by this Commissioner of Police with one statement he made, between

himself, between the police service and the people, the poor and working class

people of this country, when he suggested, maybe in jocularity, maybe just as an

offside joke, pardon the pun, that there should be a football game between the

police service and Sea Lots on the Beetham Highway during the lockdown. You

cannot imagine the goodwill, just a simple statement like that brought for the

police service. The police cannot be perceived like La Cosa Nostra. It must be

transparent, not shrouded in secrecy. And in my opinion let us make changes to

the Bill that can bring meaningful change, and I thank you, Madam President.

Madam President: Sen. Richards

Sen. Paul Richards: And I will be no more than seven minutes. I think I have

timed myself. Let me just start and take 15 seconds to congratulate our National

Men Senior Football Team who qualified for the Gold Cup last night. [Desk

thumping] Congratulations to head coach Angus Eve who has certainly inspired

the team in a short time.

Madam President, let me get straight to it. The provisions in this pretty short Bill

are long overdue. But as many have indicated before, they do not seem to go far

enough in terms of a mandate for reporting in a timely manner in many of the

instances to fulfill the obvious mandate of the Police Complaints Authority

under the Act, Chap. 15:05, which is:

“to establish an independent body to investigate criminal offences involving

201





UNREVISED

police officers, police corruption and serious police misconduct and for

other related matters.”

I want to put it on the record in stating that there is a tendency for an

automatic default that once the PCA gets involved it means the police officers

are guilty of the alleged misconduct. And it is an investigative body. And in

some instances police officers are exonerated. So we need to not be telegraphing

subliminally the mindset that all allegations against police officers for

misconduct end in what may be considered malfeasance.

Madam President, just to give some context, and I got this information to

see how far the remit of clauses 2 and 3 go, in terms of the special reserve

officers and also the municipal police officers. And I got hold of a sense of what

the strength of—The police force is about 6,500 officers of the TTPS substantive

and the special reserve police officers in a document dated March05, 2021, from

the HR department totals 2,777, including two Senior Superintendents, eight

Superintendents, eight ASPs, 48 Inspectors, 104 Sergeants, male that is,

Corporals 123 and PCs 1,620 males. In terms of females, there are seven female

Inspectors, 19 Sergeants, 12 Corporals and 826 police constables, totaling 2,777.

Like Sen. Lutchmedial I am not a math expert but by my simple calculation, that

brings the service to 9,277, which means the SRPs total 29.9 per cent, almost

one-third who, if this Bill is passed, will now fall, also, legally under the remit of

the Police Complaints Authority, which is very important in terms of dealing

with the allegations and investigating serious police misconduct as the mandate

says.

And part of the mandate is:

202





UNREVISED

“(f) to gather evidence that may be used in the investigation of serious

police misconduct and furnish such evidence to the Commissioner

or Commission for appropriate action.”

Also:

“(g) gather evidence that can be used”—if necessary—“in the

prosecution of a police officer involved in a criminal offence and

furnish such evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions”

—the DPP. And very often, one finds, as has been articulated earlier today, that

the timeline and reporting is less than appropriate.

This is underscored in several articles over the last couple years by one,

the present Director’s predecessor, now Justice Gillian Lucky, who I had the

pleasure of interviewing on several occasions and also this present Director,

David West, who always lamented though the PCA is a noble body with a

particular mandate, it has been constrained significantly because of legislative

shortcomings. Let me put it that way. And law must evolve. When substantive

persons are put in those positions as Director, they have a firsthand driver seat as

to how the legislation that governs the body is functioning and if it is indeed

fulfilling the mandate. And if there are shortcomings, that must be addressed.

Recently, several other members referenced the high-profile case in a

Newsday article, I hope it is Newsday, Rhondor Dowlat-Rostant, just over a year

ago, Thursday, July 02, 2020. There was a comment from the hon. Prime

Minister when the PCA Director said the independent body had several

challenges and limitations, including requesting a series of amendments yet to be

approved by the Legislative Review Committee, and I quote:

203





UNREVISED

“West made the comment…after Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley urged

the body to fast track the probe into police killings of three men in

Morvant last”—year—“in which he noted the PCA’s inefficiency…”

This is the Prime Minister now, the hon. Prime Minister:

“in investigating matters involving police officers was one of the issues

affecting the people getting justice in some matters.

Dr. Rowley made the comment during a media”—briefing—“in which he

addressed the protests earlier”—that—“week”—which—“sparked by the

police killings of Joel Jacob, Noel Diamond and Israel Clinton.”

And when you think about it now, the Police Service Commission had been put

in a kind of defensive position.

Mr. West said the police:

“reliance on other bodies affects their ability to complete probes

effectively and efficiently.

The challenges include delays in receiving:

critical documents from the Forensic Science Centre such as

postmortems and certificates of analysis;

TTPS investigative files for auditing purposes;

Reports from officers who discharge their firearms or who were

present during such discharges.”

Now, Madam President, I made a commitment to keep this in seven minutes.

And I will just read the headline of another article from the Newsday,

“PCA awaiting eight years for more power”. Friday, July 02, 2020, from

Director David West. The article is by Darren Bahaw, Clint Chan Tak and Carla

204





UNREVISED

Bridglal that went on to underline the same concerns the PCA had elucidated,

not only in its present iteration under Director West, but certainly under now

Justice Lucky. And these lacunas and these shortcomings have plagued the

effectiveness of the Police Complaints Authority for a long time.

So in my—I think I have one more minute, if I am not mistaken. The

issues—and I hope the AG can answer these questions. And I know the Bill tries

to deal with some of the issues that had been outlined by several speakers before

me. The issues go far but not far enough, from what I assessed everybody’s

estimation. And there is no obligation for crime scenes to be—especially

involving police killings—for the police to seemingly call the PCA in a timely

manner, to be able to examine those crime scenes to gather evidence. In some

instances, hours and hours past where the crime scene is compromised,

especially in the instances where there are police-involved killings, one.

The PCA’s ability to gather evidence to do a thorough investigation is

significantly circumscribed in those instances. And also, if the AG can answer a

question that has come up on several occasions, through the Director and others:

Why is the Police Complaints Division still active, if my understanding is that

that division should have ceased to exist and is in some type of conflict with the

remit of the Police Complaints Authority? And I know the Director had raised it

on several occasions.

So, in my last 10 seconds, to try to stick to my time, I think we have gone

far but not far enough in the provisions of this Bill and these amendments

because again, we have to find a way of ensuring that the response of the TT

Police Service is not dependent on the goodwill and cooperativeness of the

205





UNREVISED

office holder. In this case, the reports have been much better than Commissioner

Griffith's predecessor, but it should not depend on the cooperativeness of the

office holder. There should be safeguards in place to mandate the response time

to ensure the effectiveness of the PCA. And I think I did seven minutes. Thank

you, Madam President. [Desk thumping]

7.00 p.m.

Sen. Renuka Rambhajan: Thank you very much, Madam President. I would

want—I am not going to give a time period, please, Milady, because I do not want

to confine myself, but I will try to be as quick as Sen. Richards. Because many of

the things he has said I wholly support. This is a Bill, as many of my predecessors

have said was long in coming. The PCA needs to have the powers it needs to

properly investigate. And certainly, the amendments in this proposed Bill are a step

in the right direction. And I will not go further beyond the statements made as to

make suggestions as to how far we can go, because I know that when we deal with

the police service, we have to make incremental change. You make a change, you

implement it, you see how it works and then you apply again. And that is most

realistic way to apply amendments when dealing with the TTPS and eventually the

PCA.

Now, what I would want to say is that when we look at the definition of

“serious police misconduct”, ordinarily, I would say that I would want to exercise

caution because the definition of “serious police misconduct” and the inclusion of

“Special Reserve Police” officers under that definition may open the opportunity

for police officers to find themselves faced with disciplinary proceedings that

would ordinarily have been considered minor but would now fall within the

206




Sen. Rambhajan (cont’d)

UNREVISED

definition of “serious police misconduct”.

But despite that, I think it is necessary for us to encapsulate some sort of

check and balance in place when it comes to Special Reserve Police officers. I

know there is the local parlance that we say SRP is something resembling police,

but that is not the reality of the rollout because a Special Reserve Police officer has

the exact same powers of a constituted police officer under the TTPS dependent on

his function. So, where he works, he may find himself exercising the same powers

of an ordinary police officer. And to put it simply, if he has the benefit of being a

police officer, he should most certainly also have the burden, the requirements of

accountability and transparency because, guess what? An SRP exercising the

functions of a police officer under the instruction of the Commissioner of Police,

or municipal officer for that matter, who causes injury to a citizen, the taxpayer is

still responsible if there is action against the State. So whether it is SRP or TTPS,

“serious police misconduct” is a welcome addition because it automatically

includes persons who would not fall under the TTPS disciplinary system.

We have a Commissioner who is working arduously to try and populate and

create different units. In the course of my experience over the past few years,

everybody has heard about PSB, the Professional Standards Bureau, but there is

also a Special Investigations Unit. We know about FIU, we know about now the

Gender-Based Violence Unit, there is also the creation of the Sexual Violence

Unit, and all of these different units need to be populated quickly. But because of

the sheer bureaucratic process of recruiting through the TTPS, it is more practical

to use the SRP. So, we welcome in my respectful view, it is welcoming to see that

the same SRP would now be covered under this definition.

207





UNREVISED

The second argument I would want to raise is that when we look at the role

of the PCA, the PCA is absolutely necessary. And they have never been more

necessary than they are right now. The sheer volume of police killings is

astounding to the average citizen, and that is where persons have died. We have—I

am sure everybody in here will have a story where they have somehow been in

contact with a police officer who may or may not have conducted himself to the

standard that the citizen would like. So I am not going to trouble you with all of

these stories because we all know it. We read it in the papers every day, we hear

about it.

So the requirement of a policing body to police the police has never been

more necessary than it is now. So I commend the amendment to section 44A which

places a certain degree of responsibility on the Commissioner and his officers to

give information to the PCA. But it rests its head on the principle of camaraderie. I

am a Police Complaints Authority, and you are the TTPS or SRP, so as a

consequence what you would have to do is liaise with me.

So again, I would agree with my fellow Senators that sanctions may be

necessary, but even beyond sanctions I want to go bigger than that. Yes, we need

to make incremental change, but I want place before the House for consideration

by the hon. Attorney General, that we can perhaps consider the Jamaican model

with the role of INDECOM, or Barbados, or in the UK where the overarching

policing body or complaints body similar to the PCA, they actually have not only

investigative powers, they have prosecutorial powers as well. And when you look

at the PCA’s report you see 306 matters were sent by the PCA to the

Commissioner of Police for further investigation. And when we look at the

208





UNREVISED

numbers where persons are being sent from the PCA to the TTPS, there seems to

be a stop gap at that point. So how do we fix that? Perhaps we should consider

giving the PCA wider powers.

The third and final point I wish to raise please, is the duplicity of process. I

have recognized the value of time and it does not come back. And when you are on

a scene of a police shooting, time is of the essence. Because witnesses are going to

get affected, and when I say affected, we use a term in in my criminal practice at

least, where you say, “the witness has been touched”. What that means is that

somebody has somehow found a way to influence this person who might be a

witness for the police. So time being of the essence, we need to try and streamline

our process from the PCA to the TTPS and vice versa.

That being said, right now, even with the amendment that is before this

honourable House, the PCA sends a report to the TTPS. When that report is sent to

the TTPS, the TTPS investigates it itself, and then the TTPS sets up a tribunal to

deal with the matter. So let us consider that for a minute. It means that the PCA

who is an investigative body having investigated, provides their report to the

PCA—sorry, to the TTPS. The TTPS now duplicates that process by investigating

the same complaint. And then they organize a tribunal and, guess what? You create

the opportunity for the officer to say, “I am before the tribunal for a disciplinary

hearing and I therefore cannot appear before in a criminal charge”. It happens all

the time. So you do not want manipulation of the system certainly when you have

the eyes of the citizenry upon you because the person you have given power to

police you, is the person you now have before the court.

So, at the end of the day what we want to do, and I agree with the Sen.

209





UNREVISED

Richards, what is the role of the police complaints—sorry, the Complaints Division

of the police service? Because we have the PCA where members of the public can

go and make complaints, we have the Professional Standards Bureau where

complaints are also investigated. And now you also have the Complaints Division

which ironically is in the same building as the PSB. So there is duplicity of

process. And I would want to respectfully suggest perhaps streamlining greater

power to the PCA, and certainly some level of accountability to the members of the

Republic as to the role and functions of police officers when they may or may not

have abused their authority.

You want to reassure the citizens of this country that the TTPS is really

working to serve. I believe it is to serve with pride—“To protect and serve with

pride”. And we all as citizens want to feel that sense of pride and the PCA is a step

in that direction by ensuring that they follow proper process. I commend the PCA

for the work that they have done under Mr. West and certainly under Justice Lucky

as she then was—as she is now and then was, the Director—let me correct myself.

And I will say this, it is movement in the right direction. I commend it and I think

we could go even further.

The very last thing I want say is I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the

Members of this House and to the Chair of course for the opportunity to speak

these last few days. I am grateful for the graciousness on both sides. And with that

being said, Madam President, this is my contribution. I am grateful. [Desk

thumping]

Madam President: Attorney General.

210





UNREVISED


Thank you, Madam President. I have to say, Madam President, without causing

any jeopardy to my learned friend opposite me, Sen. Rambhajan, that is class.

[Desk thumping] It is refreshing to stand in a debate [Desk thumping] and to listen

to Senators Lutchmedial and Rambhajan really bring home issues. Let me repeat

that, we may be on different sides of the political fence, and they are strong and

worthy opponents and give their very best shots, but I have to say this as an

Attorney General, I honestly have gratitude for the level of debate and for the

sincerity of the opinions offered. I always listen to my colleagues with great

interest because they bring their A game every time. And I feel better and sharper

for the purpose and I wish to thank them for their sterling contributions.

As I thank any own colleagues, Madam President, Sen. Rambharat tireless,

hard-working Member. The passion and flair and dynamics of Sen.

Sagramsingh-Sooklal who brings home the joy of a debate in a style that is so

refreshing to this Parliament. I wish to say, Madam President, that it is a joy to

really serve in this Senate, listening to the contributions of my colleagues on the

Independent Bench, every time making sure that the Government is aware of what

is important, of how we treat with issues, and are trying to get a to better purpose.

I will say to my learned colleagues on the Opposition Bench, I have never

seen people try to make a great argument out of a bad case as well as they do at

times, but I have to give them and A for effort. Definitely an A for effort. No one

opposite me is my enemy. They are all my honourable colleagues and friends and I

thank you for your contributions.

President, I bring conclusion to this debate as follows. The Police

211





UNREVISED

Complaints Authority is an essential balancing tool to our democracy. We have

given under the purview of section 22 of the Police Complaints Act, we have given

the municipal police, the Special Reserve Police, and the police under the Chap.

15:01 provisions of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, we have given them

acknowledgement of common law powers of constables, which have been around

forever. And we have given them the powers, privileges, and immunities under

law. We have anchored the power of the police in the Constitution of the Republic

of Trinidad and Tobago, section 123. We have recognized Service Commissions in

the purpose that they stand to treat with discipline in the structures of Westminster

commonwealth arrangement.

It is true the Statutory Authorities Service Commission, the Police Service

Commission, the Public Service Commission have interacting roles inside of here.

But I want to make an immediate distinction between discipline under the

municipal corporation structure, under the supplemental police structure—sorry,

the Special Reserve Police structure and the discipline under the TTPS Act, Chap.

15:01.

Discipline, which is a function set out for breach of regulations is a function

for the police who are subjected to control and review, either by the Police Service

Commission, the Commissioner of Police, or the Statutory Authorities Service

Commission. That is clear. The municipal police are governed by ultimately in the

discipline functions in section 38 of the Municipal Corporations Act, the SASC has

the control. Tribunals are established under the regulations, et cetera.

The TTPS for their regulations discipline can happen there. What we are

talking about today are the functions of an outside entity. That entity designed to

212





UNREVISED

guard the guard, literally. And in the functions and powers of the Police

Complaints Authority set out in section 22, set out in the Act in general, we are

looking at an independent entity so established in law to cause an investigation,

call for witnesses, act under oath of secrecy, act with powers of compulsion, access

to court.

And very importantly, I would like to remind hon. Senators that the

Government has kept to its word in ensuring that we bring to the fore legislation

which helps us to get to a better place. And what am I talking about? Hon.

Members will recall that we amended laws last year. We had the Miscellaneous

Provisions (FATF Compliance) Act, 2020, that is Act No. 25 of 2020, where we

allowed witness statements from tax and financial institutions to be given to the

PCA. Witness Statements, for the purpose of investigating criminal offences

involving police officers. We were allowing the PCA to follow the money.

We also did the Miscellaneous Provisions (Administration of Justice) Act,

2020, which is Act No. 29 of 2020. Both Acts have been proclaimed already. The

first one on the 22nd of December, 2020. The second one on Christmas Eve, the of

24th of December, 2020. And in that latter Act, the Administration of Justice Act,

the PCA was allowed to be listed as an interested party where preliminary

investigations are held into the death of a person who has been or potentially could

be the subject of an investigation for any matter carried out under the PCA. And

that they are to be given written notice on the death of any person.

So we have treated with the coroners. We have treated with the follow the

money. Today we come to treat with the equality not of disciplinary functions

carried out by the Police Service Commission, the Commissioner of Police, the

213





UNREVISED

SASC, via tribunals et cetera, and processes, but what we are treating with now is

“serious police misconduct”. And “serious police misconduct” is defined in the

Act—the PCA Act.

And what we want is the society to be enriched by the benefit of scrutiny

from an outside entity. Because Sen. Richards asked the question why do the

police still have an internal affairs division—to use the phrase that most people

may catch it to be—when the PCA exists? I do not think the two things are

mutually exclusive or in competition for that matter. Because if the TTPS chooses

to have its version of an internal affairs division, they are entitled within their own

processes to check themselves, so long as they do not exclude the autonomy and

privilege of the Police Complaints Authority. And what we do today is to

underwrite and support the powers and privileges of the Police Complaints

Authority where we subject the municipal police, the Special Reserve Police and

the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service to the same standard. You can all be

investigated for serious police misconduct. All, each and every one of you.

And in the case of the SRPs where there is no published regulation power

because that law is now under review, we are reviewing that law. We are pulling

the statistical information. Hon. Senators know the way I like to operate, I want

data so that we can demonstrate what is happening and what the results that we

hope to procure will be in a measured context.

So, what we have done and to answer Sen. Lutchmedial’s point why section

50(1) has been excluded and only section 50(2)? Because we take the Trinidad and

Tobago Police Service Regulations, we say that we are going to treat with

regulation 136, we say that we are going to treat with regulation 150(2), and why

214





UNREVISED

do we do that? Because 150(1) that is the Police Service Regulations, Chap. 15:01,

when we look at 150(1) which we exclude, 150(1) says:

“An officer who contravenes any of these Regulations commits a

disciplinary offence.”

So we had to exclude all of the regulations that were inapplicable in terms of

structural fit with the SRPs. What we did keep is section 136:

“An officer shall not make public or communicate to the press or to any

person, or make private copies of documents, papers or information of which

he may have become possessed in his official capacity, unless his duties

require him to do so.

(2) Notwithstanding that he may be charged with an offence under any

other written law, an officer who contravenes subregulation (1)

commits a disciplinary offence.”

We have kept that. 150(2) is where we deal with the following matters and

only the following matters as being applicable and germane to SRPs:

“Discreditable conduct...

Insubordinate or oppressive conduct...

Disobedience to orders...

Neglect of duty...

Falsehood or prevarication...

Breach of confidence...

Corrupt practice...

Unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority...

Malingering...

215





UNREVISED

Absence without leave or being late for duty...

Loss or damage to clothing or other property supplied...

Drunkenness, or drug taking...

Drinking on duty or soliciting drink...

Entering licensed premises...

Lending, borrowing or accepting money...

Being an accessory to a disciplinary offence...

Using any property or facility of the Service...”—improperly.

And those things are caught in relation to suspicion, also including under the

influence of dangerous drugs or intoxicating liquor, et cetera.

These things get down to the heart and soul of exactly what is also set out,

they match up exactly with section 146(2) of the Municipal Police Regulations. So

we are in pari materia, SRPs section 150(2) matching up with the Municipal Police

structures under section 146(2) of the Municipal Police Regulations set out in the

Municipal Corporations Act. So that is to answer Sen. Lutchmedial.

We are insistent also that even though one ought to have regard to the quick

despatch of regulations for SRPs, we cannot wait while that is being engaged in

with consultation to the bodies as you must develop laws in consultation, not when

we are dealing with statistical information in the PCA that tells us that significant

issues have arisen. And these issues include number of police complaints in one

year, October 2019 to September2020, per division, 396 complaints. Number of

alleged victims, 412 in that period. Ethnicity and gender of the 412: 124 of them,

African descent; 56, East Indian descent; 38, mixed descent; two, Hispanic

descent; 179 unknown. Number of reports assessed, 737, because 396 were within

216





UNREVISED

remit, and 341 outside their remit. Outside their remit for matters including the

loopholes of municipal police, of SRPs, et cetera.

Categorization and number of allegations for the period, 594. Police

corruption: Serious police misconduct, 355 of those matters. Commission of

criminal offences by police officers, 238. Methods of complaints: PCA initiated

122; in-person, 121 people; mobile application, 56; email, 54; mail, 31; hand

delivered, 8; PCA web site, four. 93 or 76 per cent for that period came from the

newspapers. So, the autonomous body of the PCA scouring open-source

communications like newspapers, 76 per cent of these matters came from

newspaper reports alone.

Now, Madam President, when we look to the fact that 213 were assigned

both criminal and disciplinary offences; 204 were assigned disciplinary offences

only; 40 were assigned criminal offences only; 300 amounted to discreditable

conduct; 207 amounted to neglect of duty; 196 unlawful or unnecessary exercise of

authority; one sent to the Police Service Commission; eight sent to the DPP; 52

sent to the Commissioner of Police; 13 sent to both the DPP and COP; 334 closed,

no further action. We are talking serious matters, including murder! Allegations of

murder against police officers.

So, can we afford to recognize that there are 3,561 SRPs and do nothing

about it? Madam President, 2,777 in full-time activity; 499 in part-time activity; 25

in attachment to the finance branch; 132 on suspension without pay; 62 with

abandoned—[Technical difficulties] —Serious Fraud Office of the United

Kingdom, having served there in serious fraud are SRPs in Trinidad and Tobago.

Because after all, you cannot have a follow the money campaign, a white collar

217





UNREVISED

crime campaign, and not have some of the best in class available to the TTPS

whilst they professionalize the class.

But we need to have the balance to make sure that there can be no mischief

beyond oversight. And therefore, we as a government, are insistent that the Police

Complaints Authority ought to have oversight over everybody who is in the dance.

Why the municipal police? Because we are adamant having laid the Joint Select

Committee Report into the amendments in local government as we come to the

fore to bring that into reality, we are adamant that the municipal police need to be

covered as well.

Now, Sen. Lutchmedial made an interesting point asking whether we ought

to amend the definition of “Commission” to include the Statutory Authorities

Service Commission. I do not think it is necessary in the context of what we are

doing now because we believe that the tribunal which reports to the Assistant

Commissioner and the whole process that the Commission engages in still works.

We can have a look at that in some greater detail as we get to committee stage, but

the point is in the Bill that is before us now, if we look to what we are proposing

by way of amendments, and we see the amendments which I have already

circulated as the Government’s proposed amendments into this Bill, having given

an undertaking in the House to look at some submissions that came from the TTPS

and from the Police Complaints Authority itself, we propose certain amendments

at committee stage here.

We believe that it is straight forward, that we include the definition of

“Assistant Commissioner” in section 4 of the Act. That is to take care of the people

that have line authority for the Municipal Police, et cetera. We believe the

218





UNREVISED

definition of “serious police misconduct” must include the municipal police and

the wider parameters of the SRPs, et cetera.

As it relates to the SRPs in particular, we want to confine it to section 136 or

section 150(2) for the reasons that I have volunteered a short while ago. We

believe, Madam President, that the amendment to the parent Act by including a

new section 13A so that we can have a move beyond the law of necessity operating

where you have the death or resignation or removal of a Director or a Deputy

Director.

7.30 p.m.

We give a narrow window, three months only, because you need to consult

the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, and otherwise the President

acts in a different way. So we want to just give that three-month period where there

is a properly constituted statutory authority to operate.

Madam President, we believe that the amendments to section 21 of the Act,

which are the functions of the Authority, we need to have—and here is the

inclusion here—that the Authority advise the police service, the Special Reserve

Police, and the municipal police service, and other public authorities—that is

important, other public authorities—on ways in which police corruption and

serious police misconduct may be dealt with; that they gather evidence that may be

admissible, again, across the three classes: TTPS, SRPs, and municipal police; that

they gather evidence that may be used in the investigation of serious police

misconduct, and furnish such evidence to the Commissioner, Assistant

Commissioner or the Commission.

219





UNREVISED

We do not think at this point that we need to put in the SASC as a

Commission because the Assistant Commissioner is being advised. And the

Assistant Commissioner—if you are looking at the municipal police, the Assistant

Commissioner is reportable to the SASC. So that we do not have the confusion of

issues at that point.

Madam President, when we look at the amendments to section 26, we

propose investigation on receipt of a complaint, that the Authority may conduct an

investigation on its own initiative, on the basis of a complaint made by a member

of the public, a police officer, a public body or authority, the commission—here

we are referring to the Police Service Commission—or the appropriate unit or

disciplinary tribunals of the police service, the SRP or the municipal police service.

It is at this point here, that the entire Municipal Corporations Act comes to

life and that, of course, includes the Assistant Commissioner and the SASC, which

takes care of that line authority arrangement. I should say. Madam President, that

there is an active discussion right now about the SASC and its role and proper fit

for the municipal police. That is under review. Because the question is whether it

ought to be done by the Police Service Commission or a different arrangement. So,

I want to stick a pin on that to say that in the review that we are conducting on the

law, we want to take a careful amount of time to make sure that we are getting the

second set of amendments to come in proper order.

It is for the same reason, Madam President, many Senators have asked

whether we ought to put specific time frames for responses on the sanction point,

as we look to the proposed inclusion of a new section 44A as in “Alpha”. We have

taken a step to include the accountability of the DPP, the accountability of the

220





UNREVISED

Police Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Sen. Lutchmedial

was right, you may very well get back a report that says, “matter ongoing”. But

Madam President, did you notice what was reported in the Newsday today?

Reported in the Newsday today is a landmark event, you know. Justice Donaldson-

Honeywell delivered a judgment, striking out an indictment for someone who was

on a charge for murder for over 20 years.

On the ground of delay, we have had Privy Council decisions tell us that

there is no right to a fast trial, there is a right to a fair trial. We are now, as a

society, coming closer and closer to concepts of reasonableness in process, which

is why in 2015, I began the journey with Dr. Rowley, as Prime Minister, and this

Government began the journey of improving plant and machinery, people, process

and law. And that is why there is been a quickening of justice in the right direction

because our eyes have always been on the good luck that the country has managed

to so far achieve in the concept of reasonableness. But the societal distinction of

what reasonableness is, is marching closer and closer to the need for better

demonstrable efficiency and the new section 44A takes us definitely in that

direction.

Do we think that we ought to get a little bit further? Perhaps in the future.

For now, we want to rely upon the fact that there has been successful review of the

DPP’s decision, for the first time in this country, about a year and a half ago. There

has been judicial decision to say you have to act with reasonableness. We have

Criminal Procedure Rules now that deal with delay as an actual event. But then

again, it was this Government that introduced Criminal Procedure Rules for the

first time in this country. Family Proceedings Rules—

221





UNREVISED

Madam President: Attorney General, you have five more minutes.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Thank you—Family Proceedings Rules, Children Proceedings

Rules, Criminal Procedure Rules, Divisions of Court. Madam President, I am a

strong advocate of—you all know what I am about to say. Just start. Just start takes

you into an incredible journey of commitment if you are prepared to do the work.

Madam President, I do not think that there is much more to say. At this

point, I would just like to, again, repeat my thanks and gratitude to all hon.

Senators for their very considered views on the legislation and to say that having

spent Monday, having been on standby Tuesday to come to the Senate, having

spent all of Wednesday with you, and if necessary tomorrow, if we are called

again, I just wish to say it is always a joy and privilege to be amongst hon.

Senators, and I beg to move. [Desk thumping]


Bill accordingly read a second time.


Hon. F. Al-Rawi: “Whoo”, I was scampering for my procedure, Madam President,

ready to ad lib it. Madam President—

Madam President: In accordance with Standing Order 66(1).

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Thank you for saving me from myself, Madam President.

Madam President, in accordance with Standing Order—

Madam President: —66(1).

Hon. F. Al-Rawi:—66(1), I beg to move that the Miscellaneous Provisions

(Special Reserve Police and Police Complaints Authority) Bill, 2021, be

committed to a committee of the whole Senate to be considered clause by clause.

222





UNREVISED

Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate.

Senate in Committee.

Madam Chairman: Acting Leader of Government Business, we have a

procedural—no, we have a procedural Motion. So the—hon. Senators, the Senate

will now resume.

Senate resumed.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

Madam President: Acting Leader of Government Business.

The Minister of Trade and Industry (Sen. The Hon. Paula Gopee-Scoon):

Madam President, in accordance with Standing Order 14(5), I beg to move that the

Senate continue to sit until the completion of the business at hand.


MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE AND

POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY) BILL, 2021

Senate in committee.

Clauses 1, 1A and 2.

Question proposed: That clauses 1, 1A and 2 stand part of the Bill.

Ms. Lutchmedial: Madam President, may I ask a question please. Just a question.

Attorney General, with the—in clause 2, by only referring to section 150(2), you

are essentially not making several offences under the Police Service Regulations

applicable to the SRPs but these include some substantial sections dealing with

conduct and so on. You know, have you considered whether you want to include

some other regulations here, like how you have included 136 with the publication

223

Senate in Committee (cont’d) 2021.07.07

UNREVISED

of information, so that you have a wider range of offences under the regulations

now applying mutatis mutandis to the SRPs?

Mr. Al-Rawi: Thank you. That is an extremely material question. And yes, we

have considered. We found it difficult to match up how we would penalize it. So

what we intend to do is to do interim regulations for the SRPs, so this is really a

stop gap applicability, a partial mutatis mutandis, only for sections 136 and 150.

But we are working on regulations in conjunction with the TTPS as we speak right

now.

Sen. Lutchmedial: Thank you.


Clauses 1, 1A and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.

Question proposed: That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

3 A. In subparagraph (a)(iii)—

(a) insert the word ““” before the words ““serious

police misconduct” means —”;

(b) delete the words “136 and” and replace with

the words “136 or”; and

(c) insert the words “ ”;” after the words “disrepute; and”;

B. Delete subparagraphs (d)(I) and (ii), and replace with the

following new subparagraphs:

“(i) paragraph (d), inserting after the words

“Police Service” the words “, the Special Reserve Police,

the Municipal Police

Service”;

224


UNREVISED

(ii) paragraph (e), by inserting after the words

“Police Service” the words “, the Special

Reserve Police or the Municipal Police

Service”;”;

C. Delete subparagraph (e)(ii), and replace with the

following new subparagraph:

“(ii) inserting after the words “Police Service”,

the words “, the Special Reserve Police or

the Municipal Police Service”;”;

D. In paragraph (g), delete the proposed new section 44A and

replace with the following new section:

“Authority 44A.(1) The Commissioner, Assistant to be Commissioner,

Director of Public Prosecutions or the provided Commission Shall, within

three months from the date the with written Authority makes a

recommendation under section 44(2), statement or provide the Authority

with a written—update

(a) statement, with reasons, on any action

which has been taken or is proposed to be taken or

not taken, in respect of a recommendation; or

(b) update on the progress of a matter which is

the subject of a

recommendation.

(2) Where the Authority has not received a written

statement or written update in accordance with

subsection (1)—

225


UNREVISED

(a) the Authority may make such further

requests for the information as may be

necessary; and

(b) the Commissioner, Assistant

Commissioner, Director of Public Prosecutions or

the Commission shall, without delay, provide the

required information.

(3) Where the Authority has received a written

statement or written update in accordance with

subsection (1) and requires further information in

respect of a matter —

(a) the Authority may make such further requests for

information as may be necessary; and

(b) the Commissioner, Assistant

Commissioner, Director of Public Prosecutions

or the Commission shall, without delay;

provide the required information.”;

E. Delete paragraph (h), and replace with the following new

paragraph:

“(h) in section48, in

(i) subsection (1), by deleting the words “and

the Commissioner” and substituting the

words “, the Commissioner or the Assistant

Commissioner”; and

(ii) subsection (2), by deleting the

words “or the

226


UNREVISED

Commissioner” wherever they occur and substituting in each place, the words “,

the Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner”.”.

Madam Chairman: Attorney General.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you very much. Madam Chair, we

propose a few amendments to clause 3. They are as circulated to hon. Members

and perhaps I can just give you a quick overview of those. They are set out in

paragraphs A as in “Alpha”, B as in “Bravo”, C, D, E, as circulated.

With respect to paragraph A, these are firstly, typographical issues in part

A(a); (b), the disjunctive is required. So instead of 136 and 150, we need to put

these two the stand alone. I have read the clauses—sorry, the regulations in the

windup that I just gave, so the intention is that we have 136 or 150(2), for the

disjunctive application, obviously. In paragraph (c), that is literally just a

typographical correction.

Let us get to B as in “Bravo”. In paragraph d(i) and d(ii), what we are doing

here, we are inserting the different species: Special Reserve Police and municipal

police. So, what we are looking at in paragraph (i) and (ii), that is in paragraph (d)

of the Bill, hon. Members, we will find that on page four of the Bill. We are

ensuring that “service” is in reference to “Police Service”, that we include the

reference to the “Special Reserve Police”, and also “municipal police”. And

therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between police, police service, municipal

police, SRPs, et cetera. That is the same rationale for (ii) of paragraph B.

If we get to big paragraph—we go to C, big C as in “Charlie”, we are

looking at subparagraph—we are looking (e) on page four of the Bill. We are again

including the concept of adding in the SRPs, so it is more than just police service

and municipal police. We want to specifically, for clarity, include the Special

Reserve Police.

227


UNREVISED

If we get to paragraph D as in “Delta”, which is an amendment to paragraph

(g) of the Bill, of clause 3(g) as in “golf” on page five, what we are doing here is

we are treating with that improvement to the new proposed 44A as in “Alpha”. It is

here that we had given an undertaking in the House. We alerted the House that we

were speaking with the Police Complaints Authority. We had also received certain

recommendations coming from the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service. And

consequent upon those fulminations, we have come with a modified version of the

method by which the Authorities to be provided with written statements or updates.

And we are specifically including in this category now, the Director of Public

Prosecutions, as well as the relative other entities set out there.

The last one that we are looking at is paragraph E in the circulated

submissions, which is E as in “Echo”. It is specifically in relation to paragraph (h),

that is clause 3(h). What we are doing is changing the word “or” to “and”

effectively. So what we are doing in section 48(2) is instead of “or the

Commissioner” we are putting “and the Commissioner”, and that will really take

care of some typographical and conjunctive as opposed to disjunctive references.

Madam Chairman: Sen. Vieira.

Sen. Vieira: Thank you, Chair. Hon. AG, I am wondering if you could just put for

the record, to allay the concerns that were raised by Sen. Deyalsingh, that this is

not infringing on the independence of either the Police Commissioner or the DPP

as feared.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes. I thank Sen. Vieira for that very important mark for the record.

So, Madam Chair, the Constitution preserves the autonomy in strict terms of the

Commissioner of Police in section 123 of the Constitution. Specifically, as it

relates to directions to an independent Commission of Police or other entities,

section 44A in “Alpha”, as we propose it now, is merely a recommendation for

228


UNREVISED

report. They are not obliged to carry out any step. They may receive and reply.

And Sen. Lutchmedial actually put it really succinctly when she alerted the nation

to the fact that the response could be as simple as matter still ongoing.

What this is intended to do is to leave a paper trail because far too often the

mischief that has been described is that people say, “Well, look, we do not know

what is happening.” You see the PCA report every year diligently on time and

whilst they say, “This is the number that has been referred in one place, and this is

the number in another place,” there seems to be only a one-way flow. And

therefore, this is intended to leave that trail open. It will be open to people to take a

step after that of their own volition. And that would come about in the public law

remedies available, particularly in judicial review as well, where you are looking at

reliefs including mandamus, or certiorari, or other positions where you prompt a

response in relation to that. So I thank Sen. Vieira for that opportunity to put that

on the record.


Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to: That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the

Senate.

Senate resumed.


Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, Madam President. I confess the disadvantage of not having to

read a speech is that you are always scrambling for paper. Madam President, I wish

to report that the Miscellaneous Provisions Special Reserve Police and Police

Complaints Authority Bill, 2021 was considered in committee of the whole and

approved without—sorry and approved with amendments, forgive me. I know beg

to move that the Senate agree with the committee’s report.

229

Adjournment 2021.07.07

UNREVISED

Bill reported, with amendment, read the third time and passed.

Madam President: Leader of Government Business.

ADJOURNMENT


Rambharat): Madam President, I beg to move that this House do adjourn—

Sen. Mark: Madam, please, please, please. Madam President, please. I would

have informed the Clerk today that there are two matters on the Motion for the

adjournment.

Madam President: Senator—Leader of Government Business.

Sen. The Hon. C. Rambharat: Madam President, I beg to move that this House

do adjourn to a date to be fixed.

Madam President: Hon. Senators, the question is that this Senate—

Sen. Mark: [Inaudible]

Madam President: Sen. Mark. Sen. Mark—

Sen. Mark: [Inaudible]

Madam President: It is now 7.51.39, the staff of the Parliament, who have been

working here since before everyone else arrived, they need to get home. Okay?

Hon. Senators, the question is that this Senate do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.


Senate adjourned accordingly.

Adjourned at 7.52 p.m.

20210707, unrevised senate debate - wednesday july 7, 2021

Documents