Win for Rowley in ‘teacup brawl’

THE Privileges Committee has found that there was not sufficient evidence to support Chandresh Sharma’s allegation that Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley physically assaulted him in the tearoom. According to the over 300-page “First Report of the Committee of Privileges” on the allegations of breach of privilege arising out of the incident that occurred in the Members’ Lounge on Wednesday, September 15, 2004, the committee found in Rowley’s favour for all of the allegations, save one — that it agreed that Rowley “sent” a teacup, two remote controls in the direction of Sharma, “along the coffee table” that separated them.

However, the report stated the committee found that there was enough evidence to support Rowley’s allegation that Sharma accused him of being racist. The committee also concluded it was as a result of this that Rowley became indignant and in exasperation, sent the various objects in Sharma’s direction. The committee nevertheless found that there was no breach of privilege by either MP or by other MPs arising out of the incident. The report stated that there was an “irreconcilable conflict of evidence” from the witnesses who included Rowley and Stanford Callendar from the PNM and Sharma, Roodal Moonilal and Kelvin Ramnath from the UNC. The report was signed by members of the committee with the exception of UNC member Subhas Panday. His colleague Gillian Lucky signed.

In reaching its findings, the committee “heavily relied” on the evidence of the only “totally independent,” non-partisan witness, Praba Singh, the tearoom attendant who, it said, was “well known for her professionalism.” Singh’s testimony stated that she heard Sharma call Rowley a racist. On the allegation of assault, the committee noted that Singh said that she saw Rowley walk towards Sharma, who stood up. She recalled hearing them talking loudly and she saw Dr Rowley look in her direction. She testified that she did not see Rowley make any physical contact with Sharma. Singh also testified that she recalled hearing Moonilal telling Sharma to be quiet and advising Rowley to walk away. The report also pointed out that the three UNC witnesses — Sharma, Moonilal and Ramnath, who all alleged that there was a physical assault — gave differing versions.

There were three separate allegations covering the physical assault charge. The first allegation, according to Sharma, was that Rowley hit Sharma in the area of his left chin with the “heel of his right hand.”  The report said Sharma stated that he was hit while standing, a statement which was contradicted by Moonilal who said Rowley first “chucked” Sharma while he (Sharma) was seated. The report added that Ramnath, on “the contrary,” testified to having seen both men standing exchanging heated remarks when “Dr Rowley’s left hand landed on the right side of Mr Sharma’s face.” The second allegation of physical assault made by Sharma was that Rowley pushed him in his chest tossing him backwards over the chair and against the wall and that when he regained his balance, Rowley pushed him in the chest again.

The report stated that “no witness corroborated Sharma’s statement” about being so assaulted. “Although Dr Moonilal said he witnessed Dr Rowley chuck Mr Sharma in his chest on more than one occasion and Mr Ramnath indicated that he saw some ‘pushes to the chest,’ their versions of what transpired differed markedly and were significantly inconsistent with Mr Sharma’s version,” the report said. Noting that Praba Singh said she saw no physical assault of any kind, the report said “it is important to mention that from where she stood at the bain-marie, Miss Singh had a clear line of vision to Dr Rowley, Mr Sharma and Dr Moonilal.” The report also observed that no other witnesses (apart from Sharma) testified to having heard the threat made by Rowley “to send down Mr Sharma’s teeth.”

Sharma’s third allegation of physical assault was that Rowley struck him in the face with his left hand. Again the report noted that there were differing versions from the UNC MPs. The report stated that the committee visited the scene of the altercation and noted the seating arrangements. “It considered the fact that no witness to the alleged assault (including Mr Sharma) testified to having seen Mr Sharma make any effort to avoid being hit by these objects as they were pelted, flung/thrown at him and found this to be quite unusual.”

In analysing the evidence of Dr Saran Ayana Valdez, the doctor who examined Sharma, the report stated that the conclusions arrived at by the doctor in her medical report were, for the most part, based on what Sharma told her, save and except for the redness in the hand. “Contrary to the evidence of Mr Sharma, Dr Valdez testified that while examining Mr Sharma she saw no swelling or redness to his face or chest. With respect to the redness she observed to the hand, the committee believed that this may have resulted from Mr Sharma’s contact with the teacup in any of the ways described by the eyewitnesses to the incident. As a consequence, the committee did not find that the medical report supported the claim of physical assault,” the report stated.

The committee also took careful note of the fact that Sharma, who testified to having been violently assaulted to such a serious extent that he was in pain, shock and suffered numbness, was able  to make his way, in the usual manner to the Parliament chamber, and moreover to fully participate in the proceedings of the House which followed. It also stated that despite the “battering,” no attempt was made to bring this grave situation to the immediate attention of the Speaker before the sitting or to the attention of the House during the sitting which “in the opinion of the committee would have been appropriate and procedurally in order.” There was also no attempt to bring the matter to the Speaker’s attention immediately after the conclusion of the sitting, the report said.

The report stated that the committee, which considered evidence submitted by the police and examined the police station diary, had “grave concern” over the admission of the police that they omitted a part of the report given to them by Sharma and that they included it in a subsequent entry. The report said the police explained the addition of an entry one hour after the initial record, as “a consequence of an omission due to human error on the part of the police.” The other members of the committee, in which Government has a majority, are House Speaker Barry Sinanan, Camille Robinson-Regis, Pennelope Beckles and John Rahael.