Ramesh: ‘Bring Ralph’s speech in court’

ST VINCENT’S Attorney General wants an order from that country’s High Court to prevent former Commissioner of Police Randolph Toussaint from using a speech which Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves gave in Parliament in a constitutional motion brought against the State.

But Toussaint’s attorney, Trinidadian Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, insists that a Minister of Government cannot claim Parliamentary privilege if he publishes his speech outside the House of Assembly. Toussaint filed a constitutional motion last year against the Attorney General in which he contended that the purported acquisition of the land by Government was discriminatory in so far as it purports to subject him to different treatment attributable to the alleged political opinions which he holds. Toussaint is seeking a declaration that the purported acquisition was unconstitutional, unlawful and null and void. He is also seeking a declaration that he is being deprived of his property and that he is being discriminated against because of his political opinions. The matter was called on Friday in Kingstown before Justice Lyell but was adjourned to March 5 for the motion to begin. The Government sought an adjournment which Maharaj resisted. The adjournment was granted, but not before Maharaj got EC $3,000 costs for the day.

In his affidavit, Toussaint said he retired as Commissioner of Police in 1989. The following year, he bought a parcel of land on Canouan Island for EC $6,478.50. On March 28, 2001, following the general elections, the Government of St Vincent changed from the NDP to the Unity Labour Party (ULP) headed by Dr Ralph Gonsalves. By letter dated March 26, 2002, the Attorney General wrote to Toussaint demanding a further payment of EC $84,220.50 plus EC $4,534.95 as stamp duty for the said parcel of land within a period of seven days. The Attorney General said in her letter that the purchase price for which Toussaint had paid did not reflect the fair market price of the same because of  his alleged ‘close relationship with the then Government.’  The AG also said the land was undeveloped at the time of purchase. She claimed that Toussaint had been privy to that information. Toussaint said that in January 2002, he had orally agreed with one Michael Bowman, a citizen of St Vincent resident in the Cayman Islands to sell the parcel of land for EC $268,820.

In his affidavit, Toussaint said that on December 5, 2002, Dr Gonsalves addressed a sitting of the House of Assembly. ‘He referred to me as Randolph Toussaint, NDP activist, Commissioner of Police, former friend and confidant of the NDP leadership at the time.’ Toussaint continued, “he (Gonsalves) said the sale of the land for EC $268,820 was a scandal which required for the Government, the Cabinet of this country, to act with dispatch, with speed, with focus, not to allow this injustice to be perpetrated.” The Attorney General of St Vincent contends that Section 46 of the constitution prohibits the use of statements made in Parliament in civil proceedings. The AG also contends that section 4 of the House of Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act precludes any civil proceedings being brought against any Member of Parliament in respect of any words spoken before the House of Assembly. Alternatively, the AG argues that section 16 renders any debate or proceedings in the House of Assembly inadmissible in any civil proceedings before the court unless the court is satisfied that permission had been granted by the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

The AG claims that the Speaker of the House of Assembly had not given permission to Toussaint to use the words spoken by the Prime Minister in this motion. As a result, the claim against the State is premised substantially, if not wholly, on the words spoken by the Prime Minister in the House of Assembly, and if so, the matter should be dismissed. But Maharaj in his submissions submitted to the court stated that the AG’s points are misconceived and erroneous in law because the established principles of law require the court to examine statements made by Ministers in Parliament to consider and decide whether the decisions and/or reasons and/or policy contained in the statements are lawful. “The court has a duty in this case to examine the said statements in order to assist the court in determining whether the Government acted lawfully,” Maharaj added. “The Attorney General, as the guardian of the public interest, has a duty as a minister of justice to facilitate the examination by the court of these statements of the Prime Minister so that the court can be assisted in the performance of its duties.”