According to Section 67(2) of the Constitution:
“There shall be a session of each House once at least
in every year, so that a period of six months shall not intervene
between the last sitting of Parliament in one session and
the first sitting thereof in the next session.”
Parliament was dissolved on September 28 instant, which meant
that there was a requirement to have Parliament convened by
March 28, next year.
Under our Constitution, it is the Cabinet that advises the
President on when Parliament should be convened, as Parliament
is incapable of doing that for itself.
It was ludicrous to talk about suing the Prime Minister if
Parliament was not convened by December 14, as the time frame
under the constitution extended to March 28, 2008.
Members of the Opposition as well as the media made a strong
case for constitution reform (without realising it) by highlighting
the powerlessness of Parliament to convene itself under our
system.
These issues were addressed in the Principles of Fairness
draft constitution, which made provision for fixed dates for
elections under an executive presidency, and for Parliament
to have the power to convene itself.
The fact of the matter is that Parliament is being opened
on December 17, which is adequate, when compared to previous
periods between general elections and the opening of Parliament.
After the December 11, 2000, general election, Parliament
was opened on January 12, 2001. After the December 10, 2001,
general election, Parliament was opened on April 5, 2002.
After the October 7, 2002, general election, Parliament was
opened on October 17, 2002.
The record is variable and for anyone to speak about this
matter without reference to our parliamentary history is to
miss the point and mislead the population.
Additionally, it is widely-known that there are physical renovations
being done to the Parliament chamber to accommodate an increased
number of MPs (41 up from 36).
Political blunder
Did anyone check to see if everything had been completed ?
The Prime Minister travelled to the Commonwealth Heads of
Government meeting in Uganda, and he was only able to complete
the formation of his Cabinet last Monday, with the swearing-in
ceremony for Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Mariano
Browne.
There are many issues over which one can criticise the Government,
but the opening of Parliament is not one of them.
Leader of the Opposition Basdeo Panday stated recently that
he was not looking forward to the next Parliament. On April
5, 2002 (after the 18–18 tie in December, 2001), he tried
to prevent Parliament from being convened by leading his parliamentarians
to vote against all nominees for the office of Speaker (including
the nominees of his own party).
This resulted in the questionable prorogation of Parliament
the next day, as no Speaker was elected. This continued again
on August 28, 2002, which resulted in the dissolution of Parliament
that day and an election on October 7 thereafter.
There was no talk back then about doing the people’s
business, but rather the desire to have another general election
to overcome the self-inflicted political blunder of signing
the Crowne Plaza Accord.
Those who subscribe to the philosophy that politics has its
own morality should not complain about Parliament opening
six weeks after the general election, when in 2002 they did
everything to prevent the commencement of Parliament after
waiting for four months.
The lament about the payment of salaries to MPs is surprising,
since it was always necessary to take the oath of allegiance
in order to establish a basis for payment, until a recent
judgment by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
relation to the Parliament that attempted to meet in April,
2002.
According to the Privy Council: “The Constitution by
implication confers on members of the House a right to be
paid. As a right conferred by the Constitution, this is a
right entitled to constitutional protection.
“There can be no objection in principle to a rule which
ordinarily treats the taking of an oath of allegiance at the
outset of a new session as a pre-condition of receiving salary.
Right to salary
“But the constitutional right to payment is emasculated
if a duly-elected member, present in the House and willing
to take the oath and participate fully in the business of
the House, is denied payment because a procedural rule, outside
the control of the member, prevents the taking of the oath.
“In such a situation, the procedural rule must yield
to the stronger imperative of the constitutional right.”
(Privy Council Appeal No 73 of 2006, para 13).
This opinion of the Privy Council has established a right
to salary for MPs in Trinidad and Tobago, which will have
Commonwealth implications.
The failure of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and
Tobago to elect a Speaker at the opening of a new Parliament
in April, 2002, led to all MPs being unable to take their
oaths of allegiance.
The opinion of the Privy Council embraced the doctrine of
necessity in order to guarantee MPs their salaries by diminishing
the importance of the oath of allegiance to the level of a
procedural rule.
What is designed to confirm the loyalty of MPs to the State
is now to be viewed as secondary to a controversial constitutional
right for Commonwealth countries with written constitutions.
The interpretation of the facts of the matter by the Privy
Council is dubious, and the conclusions arising therefrom
are troubling. The failure to elect a Speaker was the will
of the MPs and was within their control.
Loyalty to the State ought to be established above a right
to salary to ensure that all MPs have pledged their allegiance
before they are paid as legislators.
Has the Privy Council set a bad precedent for the Commonwealth
because of necessity in Trinidad and Tobago? What are the
rules for Senators?
