The Committee can censure Manning or take the drastic action of suspending him from Parliament.
The motion against the former Prime Minister was presented on Wednesday by Jack Warner, the MP for Chaguanas West.
Warner asked Speaker Wade Mark for leave to refer Manning to the committee over allegations made by Manning last Friday during the debate on the second reading of the Interception of Communication Bill 2010. He stated that Manning:
- deliberately and willfully misled the House
- imputed improper motives against the member for Siparia (the PM) and persisted in that behaviour, despite being repeatedly called to order, thereby bringing the House in disrepute and public odium
- grossly and recklessly abused the privilege of freedom of speech
Manning claimed that the facility was bigger that the Prime Minister’s residence and "the best estimate that we have, the all inclusive cost of building this facility is $ 150 million.”
Warner pointed out that Persad-Bissessar subsequently informed the House that the Member for San Fernando East was misleading the House but that did not deter Manning from making further allegations.
He reminded the House that Manning said that the motive for bringing the wiretapping bill to Parliament was because the government wanted to "close the eyes and to close the ears of intelligence agencies" in order to protect "those who financed them in the election campaign and who are involved in the drug trade."
Warner reminded the House that the Speaker intervened to stop Manning. However he said Manning persisted in attempting to justify the allegations made earlier in his contribution questioning Government’s motives in piloting the bill.
Warner said based on the statements made by Manning he believes that the Member for San Fernando East did "deliberately and mischievously" misled the House.
In addition, he said Manning "imputed improper motives against the Honourable Member for Siparia, in clear violation of the Standing Orders of this Honourable House".
He added, "Further and by innuendo the said words were said to mean that the Member for Siparia was a party to a criminal conspiracy whose purpose was to facilitate criminal activities of drug lords and drug dealers and to compromise or weaken security agencies of the State."
Warner said he was convinced that Manning "recklessly and premeditatedly committed a breach of privilege, despite my protestations to the contrary, by deliberately misleading this House" when he alleged that the value of the Prime Minister's private residence was $150 million.
"Further, Mr. Speaker, I contend that his statements implicating the Honourable Member for Siparia, as Prime Minister in promoting the agenda of drug dealers in Trinidad and Tobago by bringing to Parliament The Interception of Communication Bill 2010, were a scandalous reflection on her character and conduct as a member of this Honourable House.
"Mr. Speaker, it is a contempt for the Member for San Fernando East to deliberately mislead this House more so, if the member makes unfounded, unsubstantiated and unwarranted allegations reflecting on my integrity and conduct as a member.
"His statements, taken in their totality constitute a desperate attempt to demean the Member for Siparia, the Honourable Prime Minister, in the eyes of her fellow Parliamentarians and by extension in the eyes of the nation as a whole.
The UNC chairman said the conduct, "by a long serving Member of this House should not and must not be permitted to go unchallenged as it is likely to bring this House of Representatives into disrepute and public odium."
In making the ruling against Manning, Mark said he considered the issues of free speech but also noted that the privilege of free speech is not an absolute privilege. He pledged to vigorously defend the privilege of freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment