Speaker in the dark over UNC ‘Independents’

No one has notified House Speaker Barry Sinanan about the existence of two “independent UNC” MPs in the House of Representatives. Sinanan told Newsday yesterday that he was not yet informed of the development, but he expected to hear from either Gillian Lucky and Fuad Khan or UNC Chief Whip, Ganga Singh, by Friday that the two MPs were no longer under the Whip. Once he is informed, he said, he expected that Lucky and Khan would sit apart from the rest of the UNC members in the back bench. When asked if they would be separated by a chair from the other UNC MPs Sinanan replied: “They have enough room to put distance between themselves if they so wish. And wherever they sit, their name sign will go,” he added.

When the Pointe-a-Pierre and San Juan/Barataria MPs declared themselves “independent UNC MPs” they immediately changed the configuration of the 2002-2007 Parliament. In October 2002 there were 20 Government Mps and 16 Opposition MPs. Now there are 20 PNM, 14 UNC as well as two “Independent” MPs who are answerable to no one but themselves. Although the move weakens the UNC’s position in the Lower House, it does not really strengthen the Government’s hand. Sources said they did not see Lucky and Khan voting with the Government on many measures. “They would probably abstain on critical pieces of legislation,” sources said.

Even if they voted with the Government on occasion, the combined numbers would only give Government the lowest of the constitutional majorities — three-fifths. The most seriously entrenched clauses of the Consti-tution however require a three-fourths or two-thirds majority.  The Anti-Crime bills fall into this latter category. The question of the MPs “independent UNC” status has provoked some debate, since people have pointed to the contradiction in the term. And the question of whether the Crossing of the Floor Act can be invoked has also been raised. Political analysts pointed out that crossing the floor means movement from one side to the other as was done by  Rupert Griffith and Vincent Lasse, and before them Roy Richardson, who at the time became the lone Opposition member.

Analysts stated that  Lucky’s and Khan’s position is somewhat similar to that of Hulsie Bhaggan, Pamela Nicholson and former UNC dissidents, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, Trevor Sudama and Ralph Maraj. Bhaggan flouted the party line by expressing support for the Corporal Punishment Bill in July 1994. The UNC caucus withdrew the Whip, decided that she should no longer be invited to caucuses and that a constituency committee would handle all constituency matters and representations for the Chaguanas constituency. After this decision Bhaggan served out her term sitting next to ANR Robinson and Pamela Nicholson, two NAR MPs in a Parliament that consisted of PNM, UNC, NAR and Bhaggan.

Nicholson, who entered on an NAR ticket, joined the UNC Government, along with Robinson in 1995. But she  resigned in September 1998, after voting against it on a particular clause of a bill. She too served out her parliamentary term “as an Independent Member” on the back bench. Maharaj, Sudama and Maraj also declared themselves Independent MPs. Shortly after they voted against a Government measure, Panday called the election and the House was dissolved. According to the Crossing of the Floor provisions of the Constitution, a member of the House of Representatives shall vacate his/her seat where “having been a candidate of a party and elected to the House, he resigns from, or is expelled by the party.” Lucky and Khan have neither resigned nor been expelled.

According to the Constitution, where such circumstances arise, the leader in the House of Representatives of the party of which the member was elected shall inform the Speaker in writing of those circumstances. The Speaker shall then make a declaration that the member has resigned, or is expelled by the party. Parliamentary sources however pointed out that for this process to take place, the Standing Orders must set out a procedure by which the Speaker can recognise or identify a person to be leader of the party in the House. “The Speaker cannot assume that the Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the party in the House, especially since there is a Chief Whip on the Opposition side, and a Leader of Government Business on the Government side who gives directions in the Parliament,” the source said. In such a situation the Crossing of the Floor Act cannot be implemented at this time.