‘House subjected to scorn’

MINISTER of Housing, Dr Keith Rowley, was cleared of assaulting Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma in the Tea Room Brawl last September, stated the First Report of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Representatives.  Sharma and other UNC MPs were found guilty of bringing the House into disrepute for publicising their version of events. But the Committee cleared all protagonists of contempt of Parliament or  breaching the privileges of the House. But UNC MP for Princes Town, Subhas Panday, refused to sign the report.

The Committee concluded that during an altercation Sharma called Rowley a racist, while Rowley got indignant and sent objects in the direction of  Sharma, along the table that separated them. The Report also said other MPs gave unsubstantiated versions of the incident to the media which resulted in widespread ridicule of Members generally by the public, the result of which was a lowering of the dignity of the House of Representatives and all Honourable Members. “There was an insufficiency of evidence to support the allegations of a series of physical assaults on Mr Chandresh Sharma by Dr Rowley.

“No breach of privilege or contempt has been established”. The Committee probed allegations that 1. Sharma called Rowley a racist, 2. that some MPs brought the House into disrepute by misrepresenting the altercation, and that 3. Rowley assaulted Sharma. 1. RACISM. While most Committee members found Sharma guilty of “reprehensible behaviour” in calling Rowley a racist, this was not a contempt of Parliament because it did not impede or obstruct Rowley in his functions as a MP.  “The Committee, with the exception of two Members, determined that no finding of breach of privilege or contempt has been made”.

2. MISREPRESENTATION. The Report concluded that certain MPs presented an ill-founded version of the events and so brought Rowley into disrepute and also brought dishonour upon the House. “Had this matter been brought to the attention of the Speaker before it was gratuitously aired in the media, the resulting damage to the institution of Parliament could have been avoided. Already held in doubtful esteem, the House was subjected to unwarranted ridicule and scorn”. But because of a UK precedent, the Committee did not find “contempt”.