Panday: Cops could not touch Sharma

OPPOSITION LEADER Basdeo Panday claimed the police would have been guilty of assault had they forcibly removed Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma from yesterday’s sitting of the House of Representatives,  after he refused to apologise in accordance with a resolution taken by the Lower House on May 6 when it passed its Committee of Privileges report into last September’s tearoom incident involving Sharma and Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley. Sharma refused to apologise and leave the Chamber as instructed by House Speaker Barry Sinanan. The Speaker then directed Leader of Government Business Ken Valley to move that the Fyzabad MP be “suspended from the services of the House.” Having done so, Valley moved that the House be adjourned to May 27.

Asked at a subsequent news conference what would have happened if the police had physically removed Sharma from the Chamber, Panday said: “Police were in doubt because it certainly would have involved assault. Had they put their hands on him (Sharma) it would have amounted to assault. Whether it is a justified assault or not it would have been decided by the courts and thank God for the Privy Council.” Panday referred to the 1940s case of parliamentarian Albert Gomes who was ordered to leave House by the Speaker but refused to comply. “Instead of leaving, Mr Albert Gomes decided he was going to lie down on the table of the House. Mr Albert Gomes was 300 pounds and nobody moved him,” the UNC leader said.

However, contrary to Panday’s claim, quotes from Gomes’ own biography show that “Albert Gomes stretched himself flat out on the floor (of the Parliament) from which he was lifted up bodily and carried out by eight police officers.” (See box on this page). Sources claimed the UNC was hoping Sharma would be physically removed by the police and the plan appeared to have backfired. Panday said yesterday’s action did not mean the Opposition would boycott upcoming sittings of both Houses of Parliament, as he initially threatened at the May 6 sitting of the Lower House. “We will not respond with a knee-jerk reaction. We shall consider this matter from every angle, both legally and politically,” he stated. Panday did not know the implications of Sharma’s suspension, and suggested those questions be directed to the Speaker. 

Sharma said Sinanan wrote him a letter on May 9 asking him to apologise at yesterday’s sitting but he was prevented from carrying out the Speaker’s instructions. “I don’t know if the Speaker is playing God. He does not know what is in that statement. How does he know what is in that statement? “They (PNM, Speaker) had made up their minds to suspend me regardless,” he alleged. However, when pressed as to whether he was actually going to apologise, Sharma said he preferred the statement he intended to read in Parliament be printed in full and arrangements would be made with the Opposition Leader’s Port-of-Spain office to supply copies to the media.

Up to press time, no copies of Sharma’s statements were received and the Opposition Leader’s office said it had not received any instructions to supply Sharma’s statement to the press. Panday and Sharma claimed the PNM could take a similar action to muzzle any Opposition MP from speaking out against the Government. Panday said this proved there was a dire need for constitutional reform in Trinidad and Tobago. Sharma promised that more details of what transpired at yesterday’s sitting would be revealed at the UNC’s next people’s forum meeting in Fyzabad on Monday.