Kamla says PNM trying to stifle opposition voices

Opposition MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar issued a statement Saturday condemning the governing People's National Movement (PNM) for allegation made against her at the 1st May, 2009 sitting of the House of Representatives in a motion to take her before the Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading Parliament.

The former attorney general has been the leading voice in criticizing the minister of finance for her handling of the bailout of CL Financial and has suggested that she was in a conflict of interest in handling the matter since she was a shareholder of CL. She also raised the question of possible insider trading.

In addition she has accused the minister of being in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act by failing to disclose that she had shares in CL valued at several million dollars. Persad-Bissessar is also seeking to have a criminal investigation of the minister.

In her statement Saturday the Siparia MP said the move by the PNM "is nothing more than another naked attempt by the PNM to intimidate/silence me, and the Opposition UNC from valid criticisms of the Government for their perceived abuse of State power, corruption and mismanagement of the country."

She said what happened in Parliament on Friday is consistent with what the PNM has been trying to do for the past two years in its effort to stifle the opposition voices in exposing the government on all fronts.

"I have taken the lead in calling for the dismissal of Minister of Finance Karen Nunez Teshiera. Yesterday (Friday), my colleague Dr. Tim Gopeesingh was silenced by the PNM’s majority when he raised matters against Minister Imbert.

I see this move to bring me before the Privileges Committee as another manifestation of that dictatorial PNM trait, and without merit."

Persad-Bissessar pledged to carry out her parliamentary duties "without fear or favour in accordance with the oath of office I took". And she categorically denied the allegation that on April 3, 2009 she "deliberately and willfully misled the House" in her contribution to a Parliamentary debate on amendments to the Integrity In Public Life Act.

She said her concerns in that debate reflected the concerns of citizens and therefore she considered it her constitutional duty to "reflect on and question issues of such national importance on behalf of the population".

She said she was well within her democratic right to question "any institution of this country on the people’s behalf, especially when that institution is perceived to be acting against the public interest."

She also explained her position on the matter relating to the delay in appointing members of the Integrity Commission, stating that "at no time in my contribution did I personally criticize the President or cast aspersions on his competence. I was questioning a valid issue which several other public commentators had done before, namely the non appointment of members of the Integrity Commission."

She said she quoted a written response by the president to one of those commentators to illustrate her point and insisted that she did not "willfully and deliberately mislead the House as alleged or at all".

She said in the circumstances, "a fair Privileges Committee should rule in my favour when the evidence is before it" because the statements do not amount to a willful and deliberate misleading of the House as alleged.

"My statements were based, as I clearly stated at the time, on advice from the Opposition Leader. At the time I made the statements, I had no reason to believe that they were inaccurate and therefore I made same in the genuine belief that they were true."

Persad-Bissessar explained that she discovered after moving to take action against the president on the Integrity Commission matter that the opposition leader had in fact received correspondence from the president on the matter and apologized for suggesting that no such correspondence existed.

She said she welcomes the appointment of the commission and said she intends to write to the president to convey this sentiment as well as to indicate in the light of their appointments to withdraw her pre-action protocol letter sent last week.

However she took issue with the appointment of Mr. Jerry Macfarlane to the commission and said she intends to raise that issue with the president because she finds it "unacceptable given that he is an employee of a State agency and reports to Mr. Calder Hart and therefore is compromised."

She said she intends to seek leave of "the Honourable Speaker of the House to make my comments herein by way of personal explanation at the next sitting of the House".