Lucky: Unacceptable to say teacup report biased

TO claim that the report on the “teacup brawl” by the Privileges Committee was biased and prejudicial, knowing that the committee has a Government majority, is unacceptable, and any matter referred to the committee should be thoroughly thought out, or redress should be sought elsewhere. That was the advice yesterday of “independent” UNC Member of Parliament for Pointe-a-Pierre Gillian Lucky, when she made her contribution during debate of the report in the House of Representatives. When debate resumed in the House, UNC members packed up and left the chamber, leaving Lucky and her independent Opposition colleague Barataria/San Juan MP Dr Fuad Khan behind.

It was a repeat of Monday’s action, when UNC members said they would not take part in the debate as they felt it was a frontal assault on the independence of the Judiciary, a trespass on the judicial functions of the court, and a subversion of the principles enshrined in the Constitution under Chapters 4, 5 and 7 on the separation of powers. The alleged assault of Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma by Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley is currently before the courts. Sharma is alleging that he was physically assaulted by Rowley in the Members’ Lounge of Parliament on September 15, 2004.

Lucky said she was participating in the debate, unlike the other UNC members, because in her view what she said would not amount to an attack on the Judiciary. She said her training as an attorney-at-law allowed her to be able to do so, pointing out that it was ridiculous to suggest that when one became an MP one had to shed one’s professional gear. She also said that as a member of the committee, it would be remiss of her not to speak. Lucky said on the matter of prejudice, the matter was put in the public domain long before it was referred to the committee. She said no one should cast aspersions, and there should be no “he said, she said, they said,” because persons were encouraged early on to make a determination of the facts, when the facts were not known.

She said, “Politicians were busy riling up and telling the public to take sides” on the matter, and the incident provided for a worrying political divide. Lucky stressed that the composition of the committee was well known, that is, there is a Government majority, and one should think carefully before referring matters to the committee. She said persons should not accuse the committee of being biased and prejudicial before its findings were known. She said it was wrong to do so, and therefore, if there were such feelings, persons should not come to the committee, but should seek redress from other courses of action rather than chastise the committee. She said the committee advised witnesses prior to giving evidence to air their concerns, and if persons felt there would be bias they should withdraw their complaints before the committee’s work is done.

She defended the work of the committee, saying it was not operating under a shroud of mystery trying to say one thing and do another. She said the committee was the most sacred of Parliament. Lucky appealed for persons to stop talking about integrity, but to start to live it. And referring to the statement of her party leader Basdeo Panday — that politics has a morality of its own — Lucky said one could not go down that road because once integrity is compromised and undermined, “people will start to find excuses for unacceptable behaviour.” She was firm that professional integrity must reign in politics. She said the committee had done its job and acted on evidence and not whims and fancy, and that was the reason why the debate was not contaminating the process.