Tearoom brawl hovers over UNC

After months of making a hue and cry about the alleged assault — symbolised by the graphically trivial image of Dr Rowley allegedly flinging a teacup at Mr Sharma — Mr Sharma and his lawyers failed to turn up for the court hearing. As a result, senior magistrate Lianne Lee Kim dismissed the matter. Mr Sharma later told Newsday that he had thought the court date was set for next week. It also seems that Mr Sharma’s lawyers apparently also forgot the date for the hearing. This is astonishing, since Mr Sharma expended so much energy in his attempts to make a cause celebre out of this incident. He even defied the Speaker’s orders to leave the Lower House — a move which now has the Fyzabad MP indefinitely suspended from Parliament.

Speaker Barry Sinanan will have to decide whether Mr Sharma will be allowed to return to Parliament when the new session begins. We presume that the Speaker will do so, since Mr Sharma’s suspension has been in lieu of the apology demanded by the House. It will be interesting to see, however, if Mr Sharma will take it upon himself to offer an apology to both his fellow MPs and citizens — but we will not hold our breath waiting for that.

Such an apology would be very much in order, though, since what has now happened is that both the Privileges Committee of Parliament and the courts have agreed that Mr Rowley did not assault Mr Sharma. It may be argued that the court did not reach any decision — but the public no doubt already has its view on why Mr Sharma didn’t appear for the most important case of his political career. The prevailing opinion may well be that Mr Sharma, aided and abetted by senior UNC members, misled people on what actually happened in the tea-room.

Since these senior UNC members included Kamla Persad Bissessar, Ganga Singh, Kelvin Ramnath and Dr. Roodal Moonilal, and since the party is now engaged in its internal elections, the UNC cannot put this matter behind it so easily. The teacup incident has come to represent in the public’s mind a particular mode of conduct peculiar to the UNC. This may not be fair nor even accurate, but in politics perception easily becomes reality. The fact that UNC leader Basdeo Panday also lent his support to Mr Sharma means that he, too, will be seen as part of a conspiracy to demonise Dr Rowley. And that, even if tangentially, impacts on Mr Panday’s decision to be chairman of the party — especially if it turns out that the slate he favours wins in the election, and if he decides to keep his post as Opposition leader in the Lower House.

So the UNC cannot now remain silent on the court’s decision, nor can it remain silent on Mr Sharma’s conduct. Yet there is little that the party can say which will not harm its image. The challenge it faces is to handle this matter in a way that minimises the damage — not a palatable task, but one which the UNC’s current leaders have brought on themselves.