The move to send Member of Parliament, Harry Gill to the Committee of Privileges over a letter to the editor in the local press is not sitting well with the parliamentary Opposition, as it plans to bring the matter to the attention of the diplomatic community and even challenge it in the courts if necessary.
Opposition parliamentarian Harry Gill
This was communicated in a broadcast by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who was adamant that fellow Opposition parliamentarian Gill was within his rights in his letter which appeared in sections of the media.
In the letter, Gill had alleged bias in decision-making on the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland’s part. For that and at the urging of Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, the Speaker on Monday referred him to the Committee.
“We are not going to leave this like that,” Nandlall emphasised. “We are going to write the International Parliamentary Association. We are going to write the diplomatic community. And we are going to challenge it in the courts of law if it means we have to go to that extent to protect our right to speak.”
“You would recall that they did the same thing to (former Home Affairs Minister) Clement Rohee, when they had a one-seat majority in the Opposition. They gagged him from speaking. And I took it to the courts and I won.”
Nandlall contended that since he must keep order, the Speaker has the right to take action against MPs once their infractions are of a serious nature and within the National Assembly. That right, he pointed out, does not extend beyond the parliamentary chambers.
Speaker of the House, Dr Barton Scotland
“Freedom of speech is fundamental to a democratic parliament (and) a fundamental right. This means we can criticise. We can criticise the President. We can criticise the Judiciary. And, of course, we can criticise the Parliament. But in our criticism, we must not bring the institution into disrepute. And when we criticise, we must put out the facts, which are supportive of our criticism. And we must always criticise in good faith.”
Facts
According to Nandlall, Gill had recited a series of factual events which occurred in Parliament to support his contention of bias in his letter titled “There are inconsistencies in the Speaker’s rulings on sub judice and other matters”.
“It is not that Harry stayed home and came to this conclusion (of bias). He cited examples known to all of us,” Nandlall noted. “For example, I spoke of a matter and I was asked to produce a source of that information. And I cited a source. But the Speaker told me I must produce a source. And when I was unable to produce the source, the Speaker asked me to withdraw the statement.”
Nandlall recalled that his source was a newspaper article, which he was willing to go home and retrieve. But the former AG noted that when the Speaker insisted he withdraw his statement and he refused, he was asked to leave.
“A few nights ago, (Attorney General) Basil Williams made certain comments and Gail Teixeira asked for his source. He did not provide any source and the Speaker did not reprimand him. But I was asked to leave the Parliament.
“So, if Harry Gill compares those two instances and then comes to the conclusions that the Speaker is in favour of the Government and against the Opposition, does Harry Gill not have the freedom of expression to write that? People have a right to say that if they can cite examples to support it.”
Nandlall recalled another instance where he had produced documents showing that the subject of a debate was sub judice, but he said the Speaker refused to look at these documents. However, he referenced instances when Williams made a similar contention without producing evidence.
“But the Speaker then, without a single piece of evidence, tells me that I have to shut up and not speak on the matter, because Basil Williams says it’s in the court and he has no document to show and I, on that occasion, had all the documents to show. If this (bias) is so, what does he (Speaker) want people to say and write?”
“If a judge is biased and one can show by factual examples that the Judge is biased, he can’t feel aggrieved. Every person has a right to speak the truth. The truth is a complete defence to libel. I can say the worst things about you, but if it’s the truth you cannot succeed in any case. Harry Gill was speaking the truth, but today he is being censored.”
Nandlall acknowledged that after his statement there may be a desire to silence him as well. But the Attorney-at-Law was adamant that such moves would be challenged, and noted that “if they can do that to us, what would they do to the ordinary people of this land?”
