Revolt in PNM as Manning's motion on privileges committee fails

Patrick Manning faced humiliation in the House of Representatives Friday from members of his own party who refused to support his motion to have his attorney address and examine witnesses before the Privileges Committee.

The former prime minister is before the Committee for statements made last year alleging that the private residence of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar cost $150 million and for suggesting that there was something illegal in the source of the funding for the building.

With the government's strong majority it was expected that the motion would fail. However what was unexpected was the split in the opposition. 

Five of the 11 members of the People's National Movement abstained from the vote. Two of them left before the vote and the others voted with their former leader.

Opposition leader Keith Rowley abstained along with Marlene McDonald, Nileung Hypolite, Paula Gopee-Scoon and Colm Imbert. Those voting in favour of the motion were Manning, Amery Browne, Patricia McIntosh and Fitzgerald Jeffery. 

Joanne Thomas and Alicia Hospedales left the Chamber before the vote was taken. Hospedales had seconded Manning's motion. Thomas returned immediately after the vote.

The PNM caucus had recommended that the wording of the motion be amended so that Manning would ask only for his legal representative to address the committee, but would drop the demand for his attorney "to examine any witnesses before the Committee on his behalf".

Manning refused to accept that recommendation, which set the stage for a showdown among the PNM members. Rowley stood his ground and abstained with some of the others.

Both Manning and Government House Leader Roodal Moonilal asked for a division, meaning that each MP would have to state his or her position. That's when the PNM split became clear.

Manning's humiliation was even more pronounced because in presenting his motion he was optimistic of getting the party behind him. "I feel confident Mr Speaker, that I can look forward to the support of my colleagues in this motion," he said.

He argued that while the Privileges Committee allows a Member's legal counsel to be present, the attorney could only advise his client and could not be heard by other members and the chairman.

He said such a provision is inconsistent with the Constitution on the matter of fundamental constitutional rights.

Manning pledged to take the Parliament to court, "And then it would go to the Privy Council. I am sure of it," he said.