UNC motion for salaries thrown out

DISMISSING a $1.8 million claim by Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday and 14 Opposition MPs for salaries which they claimed they had earned but had not been paid, Justice Nolan Bureaux yesterday declared it was not impossible to elect a Speaker of the House of Representatives during the 18-18 deadlock following the 2001 general election. Presiding in the San Fernando High Court, Bureaux dismissed a constitutional motion filed by UNC MP for Fyzabad Chandresh Sharma on behalf of his Opposition colleagues. In a 23-page judgment, the judge stated, “No reason why, among them all, the 36 members of Parliament could not have agreed on a Speaker.” He added, “There was nothing impossible about it.”

Sittings of the House of Representatives came to a halt when two attempts to elect a Speaker failed as the ruling People’s National Movement (PNM) Government had 18 Parliament members — same as the number on the Opposition benches. With no Speaker to swear in MPs, an MP could not have been deemed, in law, an official elected representative. In their motion, Panday and his MPs contended they were not paid salaries for 18 months during the 18-18 deadlock. The salaries amounted to $1.8 million. However, the motion alleged unequal treatment on the ground that PNM MPs who were appointed ministers of Government and parliamentary secretaries, received salaries. The motion also contended that no salaries should have been paid to PNM MPs as well because their ministerial portfolios only became possible by virtue of their election as MPs.

Queen’s Counsel Dr Fenton Ramsahoye and Anand Ramlogan argued the case for the Opposition MPs, while Attorney Russel Martineau argued the case for the State. Stating that he found no merit in the applicants’ (Opposition MPs) submissions, Bureaux stated that there was nothing in Section 141 of the Constitution which creates an entitlement to salary by an MP (or any other office holder) under the purview of the SRC such as to amount to a “constitutional debt.” However, the judge agreed with Ramsahoye that there is no constitutional provision which prohibits payment if no oath of allegiance is taken by an MP to be sworn in as an elected representative.