Rowley to answer contempt charge before Parliament's Privileges Committee

Speaker Wade Mark

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar on Wednesday asked the Speaker of the House of Representatives to have Opposition Leader Keith Rowley be taken before the Committee of Privileges of Parliament to answer a charge of contempt. 

She sought leave to raise the matter as a question of privilege in accordance with the provisions of Standing order 27(2). 

Persad-Bissessar read from the records to make a case that Rowley deliberately misled the House of Representatives by making statements that he knew or ought to know were false. She also asked for Rowley to be censured for abusing the privilege of free speech within the Parliament. 

Mark responded by stating that his task is not to hold an inquiry in the matter but to determine whether there is a reasonable case to be answered. He said in that context a prima facie case of contempt had been made out and ruled that Rowley would have to face the Privileges Committee.

The Prime Minister's statement on the matter is transcribed below:

Mr. Speaker, at the sitting of the House of Representatives held on Monday May 20, 2013, during the debate on the Motion of No Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government moved by him, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition stated:

“I received a package…and Mr. Speaker ….the content of the package was a series of emails which someone, in a position to package, thought that this country should have access to, based on what was before us, what was being said to us and what it meant for the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw the emails my first reaction was to ensure that it was not frivolous and, therefore, I did not take it to my colleagues, I did not take it to the media, I did not publicize it; I wanted to be satisfied that what this whistle-blower had presented to the Office of the Opposition was information that should be taken seriously. Mr. Speaker, and when I was satisfied that that was so I took the information to the Office of the President.

Mr. Speaker, I waited for six months. I waited for six months to see what would happen with the information that I consider to be extremely important, because it points………to grievous wrongdoing on the part of officers who had in fact failed to answer questions to the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

…with a proper examination and corroboration of these emails, would show that the Government sold its mandate for financial gain and is in the employ of persons who use the Government mandate to protect themselves from the court, both at home and aboard. 

It points—Mr. Speaker, this package of emails point to high crime in the office of Trinidad and Tobago. The contents of those emails point to interest by the Proceeds of Crime Act. It points to possible violation of the FIU statute. It points to public officers who may be guilty or having questions to answer for misbehaviour in public office and that will bring the Integrity Commission into place.”

Mr. Speaker, following this statement the Leader of the Opposition proceeded to read into the records of this Honourable House information contained in a document in his possession that he claimed represented email communication involving the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Attorney General and the Hon. Minister of Local Government and one other person. 

Mr. Speaker, the documents upon which the Leader of the Opposition relied alleged the existence of a web of communication that sought to establish activities of serious/criminal wrong doing on the part of those involved.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of his contribution, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition passed a copy of the documents from which he read, via the Chair of the House, to the Leader of the House. 

Mr. Speaker, an examination of the documents reveal that they contains numerous obvious errors, inconsistencies and major discrepancies which suggest that it is a wholly sham document, created for the sole purpose of causing mischief and to maliciously lay false accusations against Members of the Government. It plainly suggests Mr. Speaker that there was a clear intention to mislead this Honourable House.

I therefore submit that the Leader of the Opposition committed contempt of this House on the following grounds:

1. He deliberately and willfully misled this House
2. He recklessly abused the privilege of freedom of speech in this House thereby bringing this House into public ridicule and odium.

In respect of the first ground, Mr. Speaker, it is my considered opinion that the Leader of the Opposition knew that the document from which he quoted was a mere fabrication or, at the very least, he ought to have known that it was false since this was plainly obvious from the face of the document.

On the second ground, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the Leader of the Opposition recklessly abused the freedom of speech in this House when, relying on this plainly fictitious/false documents, he proceeded to level serious allegations of serious/criminal wrong doing on the part of the Honourable Prime Minister and other Ministers during his contribution in this Honourable House.

Mr. Speaker, this wanton action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition cannot escape the scrutiny of this House because it has the potential to spread the contagion of disbelief to everything said in this Honourable House.

In light of the above Mr. Speaker, I seek your leave to have this matter referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House for its consideration and report.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Parliament unanimously rejects no confidence motion in absence of opposition

PM Kamla Persad-Bissessar in Parliament Wednesday

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar asked Parliament Wednesday to reject a no confidence motion brought by the opposition calling it a hoax. She asked legislators to reject it as null and void and of no merit.

The opposition had walked out prior to the PM beginning her contribution to the debate.

The motion was rejected unanimously with the support of 26 members, including backbenchers Herbert Volney and Collin Partap. There were no absentions and none in favour of the motion.

Opposition walks out on PM Kamla

The Parliament chamber after the PNM walkout

The Opposition People's National Movement (PNM) walked out of Parliament on Wednesday afternoon after Speaker Wade Mark announced that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar would conclude the debate on Rowley's no confidence motion. 

Mark made his ruling in keeping with Parliament's standing order 34.2 after Rowley wrapped up his contribution in which he demanded an investigation of the matter of the emails he presented.

The Prime Minister began her contribution by stating that she didn't know that people were "so frightened" to hear her speak.

She took issue with Rowley for what she said was the fact that he based his entire defence on statements made by St Joseph MP Herbert Volney. She said it is interesting that this was the same man who dismissed Volney before as a person not to be taken seriously.

Just before Rowley concluded his remarks he alleged that the Prime Minister refused to reply to questions about Section 34 from the president. Persad-Bissessar rose to enquire whether the president told him so. Rowley refused to answer.

However in her contribution in the debate in the absence of the opposition she made it clear that she would never divulge private and confidential correspondence between the PM and President. She said she did reply to two letters from the president.

Persad-Bissessar also addressed Rowley's contention that police are not competent to investigate. She said the police are the only ones in the country with the authority to investigate matters such as the criminal issues raised in the allegations. She said contrary to Rowley's contention the Integrity Commission does not have the powers to conduct such a probe.

And she criticised Rowley for suggesting that the police are not competent to deal with investigations. She said while the opposition leader was attacking the government for trying to undermine institutions of state, Rowley was launching an unfair attack on the police. He noted that it is not surprising coming from Rowley, who has called soldiers killing machines.

Rowley admits some emails presented in Parliament might be bogus. "I am not pretending to be an IT expert", he says

Keith Rowley: "Suppose one of them is right?"

Keith Rowley told the House of Representatives Wednesday afternoon that he took the emails he received from a "whistleblower" to the President at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2013.

The Leader of the Opposition was winding up the debate on his no confidence motion. In opening the debate on Monday he presented a string of emails he said were from top government officials including the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

The documents, he said, contained email exchanges that revealed a conspiracy to undermine the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), have the DPP removed and also to harm a journalist.

The government has dismissed the emails as a fabrication and pointed out several technological reasons why it is clear that the material is bogus. Speakers on the government side have also asked why Rowley didn't go to the police with what was obviously a matter that, if true, had criminal intent.

In his rebuttal Wednesday Rowley admitted that he is no IT expert. "I am not here pretending to be any IT expert," he said. And then he suggested that it is possible that some of the material he presented might be true.

"Suppose the contents of one or two is true? Suppose one of them is right?" he asked.

He said when he received the package of emails he was taken aback by the contents and waited a few days before doing anything about the package. However he said he determined that the material contained serious allegations that should be investigated. So he went to the head of state.

George Maxwell Richards was the president at the time and Rowley said he expected the president ton pass the material to the Integrity commission, which he felt had greater investigate powers than the police.

However he did not deal with the issue of why he didn't take a matter of possible criminal intent to the police.

Rowley said he is not comfortable with any police investigation and said the country would only be satisfied if the "proper" authorities conduct a thorough probe of the matter. He said he is not satisfied that the police would conduct a proper investigation.

"I am here demanding a deep forensic investigation," he said adding that unless a proper investigation is conducted there would be a permanent stain on the country. 

He made it a point to support the fired Legal Affairs Minister Herbert Volney who suggested that the allegations than Rowley made were serious enough to
be investigated and that the Parliament is not the place for such an investigation.

Letter: Take Volney's contribution with a grain of salt.

Sometimes you really have to question the credibility,qualifications,intellect and mental state of Mr Volney. 

It has become really difficult to believe anything the man says as in the blink of an eye his story drastically changes. After years of defending his judgement in the Brad Boyce case, he now admits he erred in the ruling (even though the Privy Council so ruled in 2006). 

It is now clear why he would err in his ruling. On Monday after the Opposition Leader contributed with a thread of emails allegedly shared between top ranking Government Officials, Mr Volney left the Chambers and expressed his 'shock' to reporters waiting for comments. 

He even went on to state that he believed it was in fact true. Did Mr Volney even see these emails before? Did he take time to examine them? Did he seek expert advice from a forensic IT consultant? No, he did not. 

Without taking any 'evidence' for examination and authentication , 'Justice' Volney ruled that the emails were true and the Government could not defend themselves. He even admitted to not waiting to listen the Attorney General's response (who contributed immediately after). 

He did not wait to hear any defence, he accepted the emails as sound 'evidence' without examination and rushed to state that he believed the emails to be true because it coincided with the timing of his dismissal. Is this the reasoning and intellect of a former High Court judge? My God! I dread to think of those who stood before him in court with their lives in his hands.

The emails have since then been opened to many errors that would deem them fake and unworkable, impossible to create and function. It is believed by many to be a hoax, carefully thought of and crafted by someone. 

How can Mr Volney believe the timelines of the emails to the actual events to ever be real when some dates and times were clearly out of zone and could be easily crafted to look as though the emails were sent around the same time? This man has to be off his rockers! I ask myself everyday, how and why he is where he is today.

Anyone can tell you and show you, even my twelve year old brother, how to send 'fake' emails appearing to originate from a real person. 

There are so many sites online with step by step instructions as to how to send fake emails or hack accounts. This is general knowledge yet we have a former High Court Judge and Minister completely oblivious and ignorant to such. It is unbelievable.I think this was all said and done so he could sing his tired tune of dismissing the Attorney General.

Andrew Marcano | Long Circular

Guest commentary: A Tangled Wed - by Robin Montano

A TANGLED WEB

A famous quotation from Sir Walter Scott (1771 -1832) reads:

"O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

This quote came to my mind this morning as the continuing saga of Dr. Rowley's e mails unfolds. 

Let me say here and now and quite candidly that I now believe beyond reasonable doubt that the e mails are fakes. Whether Dr. Rowley knew that the e mails were forgeries is another question. 

Most certainly, from what we are now hearing and seeing on our television screens, that at the very least he is guilty of gross recklessness in doing what he did in the way that he did it. A more thoughtful person would have checked those alleged e mails much more carefully before publicising them in the manner that the erstwhile Leader of the Opposition adopted.

Since Monday's revelations in Parliament a number of PNM spokesmen have come out batting for Dr. Rowley. Leading the attack for his leader is the PNM's Public Relations Officer, Mr. Faris Al-Rawi, who also happens to be a PNM Senator. 

On television yesterday (Tuesday) morning Mr. Al-Rawi waxed warm in defending and supporting his leader. When asked the obvious question as to why the PNM did nothing about these e mails which they had supposedly had since December, Mr. Al-Rawi said words to the effect that they sent them to the highest office holder in the land ... the President. And then he went on to say that President Richards had sent them to the Integrity Commission! Why send them to the Police? They were sent to the very top!! You can't get higher than the President!

Well, all I can say is hold it sherriff! She's headin' for the strawberry patch! Really? You sent those e mails to the President? And by "you" I mean the PNM. So that means that not only Dr. Rowley knew about those e mails but others in the PNM knew about them too? And therefore President Richards knew about them in December? And the Integrity Commission knew about it also in December?

You see, in those e mails are (amongst other things) some very, very serious threats on the life of a journalist ... a citizen of this country. So, leaving aside any "politricks" that the e mails are alleging you are also talking about major criminality here. 

Therefore, if Dr. Rowley and Mr. Al-Rawi are indeed telling the truth this must mean that our former President George Maxwell Richards knew that there was a threat to the life of a citizen and he did nothing about it! 

Further, the Integrity Commission also knew and it also did nothing about it! Further, others in the PNM also knew or believed that it was possible that a young woman might be killed! And nobody did anything to prevent that from happening!!

You see what I mean? 

This scandal is too serious to just let it go like that. Mr. Ken Gordon, the Chairman of the Integrity Commission, is quoted in the press this morning (Wednesday) as saying that if the e mails are true then that would be very serious. 

But I must ask Mr. Gordon directly, what if the e mails are forgeries? Fakes? Wouldn't that also be very serious? Have you also considered that possibility? And also, did the President send them to you in December or at any other time before he left office? If so. what did you (Mr. Gordon/Integrity Commission) do about them? Did you alert the police? If so, when? Because Mr. Gordon's public pronouncement today (Wednesday) suggests that he, like the rest of us, only heard about this when Dr. Rowley went to Parliament.

And if the Integrity Commission and the President knew about this way back in December, or whenever, and did nothing about it, the question arises as to why they did nothing? Did they believe that the threats were not real? That the e mails were fakes? 

Or were they waiting for an "Ah! Ha!' moment when the journalist got killed so that they could say to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General "gotcha!" In other words, were they too playing politics with the life of a citizen? 

Because the only reason that I can think as to why the Opposition was keeping quiet for so long was because they wanted the murder to take place and then they coud say "gotcha!". Can anybody give me another credible reason? 

This, of course, assumes that the e mails were real. If at all times those in the know knew that they were forgeries then obviously nobody was really worried. The threat was faked! So nobody had to alert the police.

Let me say that I do believe that neither Mr. Richards nor any member of the Integrity Commission (including Mr. Gordon) ever saw these alleged e mails before Dr. Rowley dropped them in Parliament. 

But if they did, as the PNM is alleging, then a lot more people other than Dr. Rowley have some real questions to answer. We'll have to wait and see, but Sir Walter Scott's words of warning remain as true today as they were some two hundred years ago when he first wrote them.

Today's quote: PM Kamla on Rowleys's emails: Total fabrication

“It is a total fabrication and I think all that was missing was a hard hat and a gloves because it was fabrication of the highest order. It is clearly designed to bring the Government into disrepute. 

"I think this thing has backfired completely. Any right-thinking person watching those e-mails will know right away it is a cut-and-paste job that was done. It brings the Opposition into disrepute. The extent they would go seems to be the acts of desperation on the part of the Opposition..."

Guest commentary: Rowley playing high stakes game. Would he walk away on losing?

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Keith Rowley, has presented a string of 31 emails from one unnamed source seeking to impugn the government’s credibility on the Section 34 issue but his numbers don’t seem to add up. 

As a person seeking to be the next prime minster of this country one would expect that in his official actions he would display certain basic qualities such as circumspection, respect for the country’s office holders, respect for our international reputation and relationships and most of all respect for our people and their Parliament. 

As the next few days and weeks progress I am sure that a lot more will be revealed on this e-mail issue. However, setting aside the question of the authenticity of the emails, there are certain important questions left unanswered in Dr. Rowley’s email “bombshell.”

There are sections of the society that remain with lurking doubts about whether they have received full disclosure on the Section 34 issue and for that section of the society the alleged emails revealed by Dr. Rowley may have a ring of truth. 

However, in our politics, the population has long come to realize that very few things can be taken at face value. It is for this reason that the reasonable citizen must have legitimate concerns about the veracity of Dr. Rowley’s revelations.

Accepting the press reports of Dr. Rowley’s presentation to the House as accurate, the following questions arise:

1. If in September 2012 he had reliable information that the life of reporter Denyse Renne was in danger, did he then inform her of this and did he make a report to the police so that they could provide her with the necessary protection? 
2. If in September 2012 he had reliable information that illegal bugs were planted in the office of the DPP, did he inform Mr. Gaspard of this so that at the very least, a sweep could be done to detect same and charge those responsible? 
3. If in September 2012 he had reliable information that there was a plot to bait and trick the DPP into giving up his office, did he inform the DPP of this? 
4. If in September 2012 he had reliable information that the Chief Justice and Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (“JLSC”) was perceived to be pliable and accommodating to the Cabinet did he inform the Chief Justice or other members of the JLSC of this? 
5. If in September 2012 he had reliable information that there was a plot by senior government officials to accept bribes and thereby evade their treaty responsibilities to the Government of the United States did he inform the US Government of this? Did he not think it of the utmost urgency to bring this information to the DPP’s attention? 

All of these questions arise from Dr. Rowley’s presentation and unfortunately they were left unanswered.

As a responsible leader and aspiring Prime Minister one would think that Dr. Rowley would first test the credibility of his source before going public with such damning allegations against so many of our office-holders. But if he had belief in the credibility of his source then why wait six months before revealing this information to the country? 

Why wait six months before calling upon the DPP and Integrity Commission to investigate? Why did we not hear anything about these emails from the former President? 

The former President was certainly not perceived to be a friend of the present government. At the very least one would have expected mention of these emails in the former President’s now infamous “Section 81” letter.

If at the end of the day Dr. Rowley did not a reasonable belief in the veracity of his source and he did not believe that his information was reliable, it was highly irresponsible for him proceed as he did. 

It is highly improper to make allegations as serious as he made and not have a reasonable belief in same. At the end of the day it is the population that loses out since it is their business that has been deferred.

As one commentator has stated, Dr. Rowley is playing a game of high stakes poker where he has gone all in. Will he have to walk away from the table totally broke? I guess we will soon find out.

Larry N. Lalla

Newsday Editorial: PM did right

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has doubtless done the right thing by handing over to the police a batch of purported emails offered to the House of Representatives on Monday during a no confidence debate against the Government.

Opposition Leader, Dr Keith Rowley, read at length from what he deemed to be a very damaging series of emails between top members of Government including the PM, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Minister of Local Government Dr Suruj Rambachan and national security advisor, Gary Griffith.

However the million-dollar question, at the crux of this whole affair is simply, are the emails genuine or bogus? Rowley presented the purported emails without in any way authenticating them. Why during the six months Rowley had the purported documents, had he not consulted any expert in forensic ICT to either verify or nullify the supposed emails, we ask?

The purported emails referred to a lot of “old talk” that had already been circulating on the Internet. The supposed authors of the emails have denied ever having written them, with Persad-Bissessar saying the emails sent in her name had been fabricated, and so had the others. She recalled a recent incident where someone had forged her signature on a letter to award health-sector contracts.

In our view Rowley has sought to have his cake and eat it, by presenting these damaging allegations but then telling the House, “I take no ownership of this”, but instead merely saying the purported emails had come to him via some “box” from some unstated “source”. Speaker Wade Mark, quite rightly in our view, ruled that Rowley must take “ownership and full responsibility” for them.

Mark said that when an MP presents anything to the House such a presentation is deemed to be his word, not that of anyone else such as any “source”.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of Rowley to prove his claim that the emails are true. The Government does not have to do anything to disprove their veracity, but rather Rowley must bring proof of his claim. We await to see if and how he intends to do so.

In his presentation, Rowley read out from the alleged emails certain statements about the private life of a news reporter. We don’t know if the emails are valid or not, and we don’t know whether the things said about the reporter are true or not. However, it was scandalous in the extreme for a man who aspires to become the prime minister of this country to come to Parliament to publicly say such things about a female reporter, whether true or false. 

The reporter has certainly been made a sacrificial lamb, by the remarks made about her family history and medical history, all of which have no place in the public domain, and make no mistake about it, Dr Rowley has to take full responsibility for the revelations he made. 

The making of such remarks, whether true or false, is totally unconscionable, in our opinion, and reflected very badly on Rowley. Reading out the purported emails in his speech, Rowley quoted a very derogatory word used to debase females, and in our view he should have been reined in then and there by Speaker Wade Mark. 

We note that the Speaker later said that he would expunge certain unparliamentary language from the Hansard record of the sitting. As said, the source of this offensive language was unsubstantiated emails, for which Rowley should not have had carte blanche to spout. In fact he has since been challenged by AG Ramlogan to repeat his words outside of Parliament and its protection of privilege.

It was indeed a scandalous day in the House as no-one can actually prove any such exchange of emails between any of the alleged Ministers. Daily we receive dozens of emails in our newsroom about everybody in high office in this nation. It is our duty and responsibility to exercise judgment or face the courts for libel.

The point underlying all of this is that anyone can create an email, even as the email accounts of all of us remain vulnerable to hacking. In fact in the past two months, several Cabinet Ministers have had their email accounts hacked, as shown by bogus begging letters sent to persons on their mailing lists by fraudsters.

Even as we await the results of any police investigation into the purported emails, it seems this whole episode could end up damaging Rowley more than the Government.

(Reproduced unedited from NEWSDAY)

AG calls for public debate with Rowley

Anand Ramlogan in Parliament Monday

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan on Tuesday called for a public debate with Opposition Leader Keith Rowley "in front of all the media" on the issues raised Monday in Parliament during the debate on the opposition's no confidence in the government.

Ramlogan made the call during separate interviews on radio and television on the Guardian media networks. 

Rowley made allegations Monday that the Prime Minister, Ramlogan, Minister Suruj Rambachan and the PM's National Security Adviser Gary Griffith were involved in a conpsiracy to undermine the office of the DPP and to attack a journalist at the Guardian media.

Rowley presented a string of emails that he said contained incriminating evidence of the conspiracy. 

However Ramlogan, in his rebuttal in Parliament Monday, immediately drew attention to glaring inconsistencies in the documents presented by Rowley and made a categorical denial of all the contents of the emails. He called Rowley's behaviour reckless. He also challenged Rowley to make the accusations outside the Parliament where he would not have the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.

On Tuesday he again pointed out some of the discrepancies and said it is time that Rowley stop "talking foolishness". And he issued the public challenge for the debate.