UK sets precedent for jailing MPs

PARLIAMENT’S POWER to imprison any of its members if it is deemed necessary was inherited from the British Westminster parliamentary system (upon which TT’s Parliament is modelled) and the British Parliament set precedent in the 1800s by jailing one of its MPs for behaviour it considered offensive to the institution. This country’s Republican Constitution also grants TT’s Parliament the power to act similarly to its British counterpart, in terms of regulating its affairs.

The question has arisen in light of a November 12, 2004 memorandum from Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson to Police Commissioner Trevor Paul advising the police against laying charges against Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley. On September 15, Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma accused Rowley of assault and reported the matter to the police and the Speaker, Mr Barry Sinanan, who sent the matter to the Privileges Committee. Henderson said Parliament had powers under the Constitution to regulate its own affairs. 

The Constitution clearly states that Parliament has several options at its disposal where powers, privileges and procedures are concerned. Section 55 (3) states: “In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and of the members and committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be prescribed by Parliament after commencement of this Constitution and until so defined shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of this Constitution.” Section 56 (1) adds: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House may regulate its own procedure.” 

Following on this logic and the fact that both institutions adhere to Mays Parliamentary practice, this implies that TT’s Parliament can take action similar to the British Parliament. The British precedent involved Northampton MP Charles Bradlaugh in 1880.  Because he was a non-Christian, Bradlaugh asked permission to affirm instead of taking an oath of office. This was refused by the Speaker who promptly expelled Bradlaugh from Parliament. He mounted a campaign in favour of atheists being allowed to sit in the House of Commons. However when he attempted to take his seat in Parliament in June 1880, “he was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned in the Tower of London.” Bradlaugh attempted to take his seat again on August 2, 1880 and was again forcibly removed from the House of Commons. He was finally able to take his seat in Parliament on January 13, 1886.

Further examples of strict discipline being taken against MPs in nations with Westminster constitutions can be seen in the cases of Piratin and Lucey in 1947 (when both men exchanged blows in the House of Commons and were subsequently admonished by the Privileges Committee) and the September 14, 2004 incident in Zimbabwe’s Parliament in which Opposition MP Roy Bennett was allegedly involved in an altercation with Government Ministers Patrick Chinamasa and Didymus Mutasa. This matter was referred to parliamentary committee but no criminal proceedings were initiated. The TT Privileges Committee is believed to have completed its inquiry but as the ruling PNM has the majority on the Committee, both Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday and Sharma have expressed reservations about the outcome of the inquiry.