Senator disappointed over committee’s ‘lame duck’ report

The report, which was tabled in Parliament yesterday, found that Ayoung-Chee did not commit a breach of privilege or contempt.

The Committee of Privileges agreed that the letter was "insulting." And it "strongly suggested that Ayoung - Chee should be written to, informing him that the Senate frowns on the type of communication sent to Deosaran, which is not acceptable in a civilised society." But the matter would end there.

Deosaran said he was baffled that the committee could have made its findings without talking either to Ayoung-Chee or himself. This, in the face of the fact that he had sent a subsequent correspondence to the committee telling them that the police had interviewed him (Deosaran) as well as Ayoung-Chee, and that they had indicated to him that they (the police) had sent a file to the DPP for additional action, because they believed that a crime had been committed, Deosaran said.

"So in that very serious context it is very disappointing to know that the committee which is supposed to represent the integrity of the Senator, has not really gone further," he said. Deosaran said the committee had gone no further than a "paper committal."

Noting that the committee acted on the basis of his (Deosaran’s) formal complaint (which included a copy of the offending letter) and a letter which Ayoung-Chee subsequently submitted , Deosaran stated that even before the Preliminary Inquiry Act had been passed to allow paper committals, the Senate was apparently instituting the measure. "Because they haven’t called any of the witnesses — ie, the complainant or respondent — to validate the statements made and (the committee) has instead acted very magisterially in making a decision which I find very strange for a committee in which there are lawyers," he said. Deosaran said the committee’s response showed that the Parliament itself had no regard for its own integrity and its own independence.

He said while the Parliament had to accommodate criticism of its members, a physical threat from a member of the medical profession (who was supposed, by his very profession, to secure someone’s physical well-being) was another matter.

Deosaran said he did not understand how the Medical Board and the Medical Professionals Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MPATT) could allow such statements and public threats to go unattended. "But then the Parliament is doing the same thing," he lamented, adding that this was another example of the incapability of the institutions to deal with lawlessness. He said he thought his senatorial peers would have been more appreciative of the issues raised and would have tried to set a proper precedence for the limits of criticisms. If I fall sick in the future and happen to end up at the San Fernando General Hospital (SFGH), I might be killed, Deosaran quipped.

The committee — which comprised Dr Linda Baboolal, Martin Joseph, Christine Kangaloo, Robin Montano and Dana Seetahal — stated that it deliberated on whether the Ayoung Chee letter was capable of amounting to molestation of a member on account of his conduct in Parliament. "After careful consideration, the committee unanimously agreed that the matter before it did not amount to molestation and therefore was incapable of being a contempt or constituting a breach of the member’s parliamentary privilege," the report stated.

In the letter, Ayoung-Chee had told Deosaran that any visit by him to the SFGH would be unwelcomed and "strongly advised" that he should not come. "Or if you do, choose a day when I am not within the compound.

"You will be presented with my full wrath and rot. Let me warn you, stay in Parliament," the letter stated.