Judge reminds lawyers of separation of powers

HOW far can the courts intervene in the conduct of the affairs of Parliament? In asking this, acting High Court Judge Charmaine Pemberton yesterday urged attorneys arguing for and against MP Chandresh Sharma’s lawsuit in the Parliament’s teacup affair, to address their minds to the principle of the separation of powers. In response, Senior Counsel Reginald Armorer told the judge that he applied to the Clerk of the House of Representatives for proceedings before the Committee of Privileges regarding the tearoom brawl, on behalf of Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley.

Even though Sharma withdrew his complaint that Rowley struck him with a teacup in the tearoom, Armorer told the judge that it was not the end of the matter. Submitting that the committee heard all the evidence and is yet to make a decision, Armorer submitted to Justice Pemberton that conduct by Parliament of its business must be respected and not be abused by the courts. Armorer asked Justice Pemberton to allow Rowley to join the proceedings as an interested party. Sharma’s judicial review lawsuit against the Commissioner of Police seeking the DPP’s advice, was thrown out last week by Justice Pemberton. Yesterday’s lawsuit seeks to have the court review DPP Geoffrey Henderson’s decision that his consent was required in law to determine if Rowley should be charged.

Sharma reported to police that on the afternoon of September 12, 2004, Rowley threw a teacup at him. The DPP is named as the respondent in Sharma’s second lawsuit, but Armorer submitted that if the court quashed the DPP’s decision, Rowley could be charged. The charge of assault, Armorer added, was punishable by a fine and term of imprisonment. Justice Pemberton was told that Rowley filed an affidavit last week to support his joining as a party. A request last month by Sharma’s attorney, MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar, for copies of the committee’s proceedings, was met by opposition from Government members, who outvoted the UNC members.

However, Armorer told Justice Pemberton yesterday that he had applied to the Clerk of the House for the proceedings. If granted, it would be submitted to the court by way of affidavit. Armorer noted that Rowley had also filed a complaint before the Privileges Committee, “so that Rowley’s position on one side of the House was not dissimilar to Sharma’s on the other side.” Attorney Rikki Harnanan, representing the DPP, argued that the leave granted to review the DPP’s decision should be set aside. Justice Pemberton will hear arguments from Persad-Bissessar in reply to Armorer and Harnanan’s arguments on Monday.