Don’t table Tearoom report

Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma is asking the Parliament to defer its decision to table the Privileges Committee’s  report on the tearoom incident this Friday. In a letter to the House Speaker who is chairman of the Privileges Committee, Barry Sinanan, Sharma argued the Tearoom Report could prejudice the findings of the court in his case challenging the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to charge Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley.

Sharma’s letter which is dated March 29, noted that the Order Paper dated Friday April 1 stated that the report of the Privileges Committee on the tearoom incident is to be laid. “You ought to be aware that criminal proceedings are pending in court and the matter is listed to be heard on May 4, 2005,” the letter stated. It added that Standing Order 36 (2) provides “Reference shall not be made to any matter in which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might...prejudice the interest of the parties thereto.”

Sources questioned whether the business of the Parliament could be set aside to facilitate the work of the courts. They also queried Sharma’s decision to have the committee’s work stayed particularly since he was the one who asked the Parliament to investigate the alleged breach of privilege by Rowley. “The proceedings in Parliament were instituted long before any proceedings were taken to the courts (by Sharma) and they (the proceedings before the Parliament) are viable and binding,” sources said. The whole issue arises out of an altercation on September 15, 2004 in which Sharma alleged that he was struck by Rowley with a fist and that a teacup was thrown at him. The DPP, Geoffrey Henderson refused to give his consent to have Rowley prosecuted arguing that Parliament was the competent authority to address the matter and that it was not in the public interest to have the issue referred to the court.

Sharma filed for judicial review challenging this decision and lost at the High Court. He has since appealed and the matter comes before the Appeal Court on May 4. In his letter to Sinanan, Sharma stated that he thought it appropriate to bring this information to the Speaker’s attention “for you would not want it to be said that you and/or your committee were attempting in any way to prejudice the court’s proceedings.” Sharma also stated that he noted with “some alarm” that although Senator Robin Montano “had written to you before you finished taking evidence that you have had the Clerk of the House write to him more than one month after he wrote to you and told him that his evidence was not required. However, I know that you have taken evidence from a secretary as to what Senator Montano told her on the day in question. A serious question arises as to why you would not take direct evidence from the maker of certain statements, but instead have preferred other evidence.”

Sharma added: “My alarm is increased when I note that you have taken evidence from a certain person who has allegedly made statements that completely contradicted what she told the investigating police officers in the presence of parliamentary staff, Members of Parliament and others.”
Sharma also said that there were several matters still outstanding for which he had sought responses from the chairman (Sinanan) and the Privileges committee, which remain unanswered to date. “Both the impartiality and the fairness of you and your Committee are on trial in this affair,” the Fyzabad MP said.