A dilemma for Chandresh Sharma

So what are Sharma’s choices now? He has several.

Firstly, the Opposition could move a motion requesting the House to end the suspension, although this would need the support of the Government.

Standing Order 43 (7) states: "If a Member is suspended under any provisions of this Standing Order, his suspension shall continue until it is terminated by resolution of the House."

But Leader of the House Ken Valley recently said that the Government would not yet support such a move.

Secondly, Sharma could take legal action. He told Newsday he may ask the law courts to interpret whether the actions of Parliament in suspending him had been done in accordance with the National Constitution.

Although Parliament is the country’s highest law-making body, Sharma said its actions must occur within the National Constitution, our top law.

The Constitution section 2 says: "This Constitution is the supreme law of Trinidad and Tobago, and any other law that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency."

Sharma told Newsday: "The Constitution is the highest document which we are guided by. The Standing Orders are not separate from the Constitution, which is supreme."

So the UNC may file a constitutional motion asking the law courts to determine whether or not the suspension of Sharma by Parliament was done in accordance with the National Constitution.

The Constitution section 108 (d) says the Appeal Court could judge matters from the High Court relating to the "appointment, qualification, election or membership of a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives."

Thirdly, Sharma said that before taking legal action he may ask the Speaker to review his own actions. "Maybe the Speaker will say ‘On second thought I should have let the MP for Fyzabad complete his submissions’ — he did not know what my speech had and if I was going to apologise or not."

Fourthly, from May’s Guide to Parliamentary Practice comes a "kiss and make up" outcome to a similar suspension from the British House of Commons which occurred on July 2, 1931. An MP had persisted in disregarding the Chair whereupon the Speaker ‘named’ him to be suspended. The Speaker directed him to withdraw but he refused. The Speaker directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him. "The Serjeant-at-Arms, finding that force was necessary, brought in his officers who in their attempts to remove the Member were resisted not only by that Member but by certain other Members." The MP was removed and suspended from the services of the House. "On July 6 after the conclusion of questions, the Members concerned expressed deep regret for the incident, and the Prime Minister acknowledged the expressions of regret and suggested that they should be accepted by the House."

Meanwhile, Sharma has said he was unsure for how long he had been suspended. Although a suspension from the "services of the House" means indefinitely and until a motion in the House to approve his readmission, he wondered whether the suspension was in fact just for one month. Suspended once, said Sharma, he could not be suspended again. "When he suspended me the first time for one month, I ceased to exist in the eyes of the House."

So far Sharma has seemed to take it in his stride. He said that as Chief Operating Officer of the UNC which was facing an election, he had much work to do outside the House.