Sharma gets leave to challenge decision not to charge Rowley

IS the tearoom within the precincts of Parliament? And, like England, should the House not govern its own affairs? These questions were asked yesterday by Justice John Myers in the hearing yesterday of the judicial review lawsuit filed last Friday by MP Chandresh Sharma against Dr Keith Rowley in the tearoom brawl. Myers granted Sharma, MP for Fyzabad, leave to seek judicial review from Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP) Geoffrey Henderson’s decision not to lay charges against Rowley, MP for Diego Martin. The teacup incident occurred on Wednesday September 15, in the Parliament’s tearoom, with Sharma alleging that Rowley threw a teacup at him during an argument.

Investigated by police, a file on the incident went to DPP Henderson, who did not lay charges for two main reasons — Parliament governs its own conduct and criminal charges would not serve the public’s interest. At Friday’s sitting of the House of Representatives, Sharma was outvoted by Government MPs in his bid to seek certain parliamentary records for use in his challenge of the DPP’s decision. During an hour of legal arguments, reference was made to the House and Privileges Act in which Justice Myers asked if the tearoom could be considered as located within the precincts of Parliament. “Will it not be an offence for the ordinary courts, if it did not?” Justice Myers asked

Quoting May’s Parliamentary Procedure, attorney Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who is representing Sharma, replied that beyond the public gallery or from where proceedings in the House could not be observed, could not be considered the precincts of Parliament in as far as the conduct of its members was concerned. Persad-Bissessar submitted that DPP Henderson failed to take into account that the incident did not occur within the precincts. Persad-Bissessar submitted to Justice Myers that with the dismantling of the colonial powers, Trinidad and Tobago has a written constitution which states that the court was the supreme power between the executive and the citizen.

Sharma must enjoy equal treatment like any citizen, Persad-Bissessar said, which could not be compared to a situation in England where the King had sovereign powers in which a parliamentarian could not be arrested. She told the judge, “The only thing that stands between the might of the State and the citizen, is the court.” Justice Myers then enquired whether there was any precedence in which “hands passed” between two parliamentarians. Persad-Bissessar cited the police case of Tunapuna MP Eddie Hart and Chaguanas Deputy Mayor Orlando Nagassar, but Justice Myers wondered whether the Sharma/Rowley affair was similar.

In a jovial reference to another hypothesis of he and brother, Judge Peter Jamadar engaging in a fist fight outside of the High Court, Justice Myers asked, “What is the correct comparator, apart from the fact that both Sharma and Rowley are human beings?” Persad-Bissessar countered that the standard of behaviour expected from MPs should be “better” than ordinary citizens. “That’s why we should prosecute them,” she said. The judge set hearing of the case for February 3. It was ordered that the application be served on the State.