Parliament under pressure

The President of Trinidad and Tobago acting on the advice of the Government has the power to decide where Parliament sits. It is absolutely up to the Government and this power is given to it by the Constitution. For example, in 1990 when the Red House, battered and almost destroyed by the attempted coup, could not occupy the building, Parliament sat in the Central Bank Auditorium. There is no argument that the Government cannot say where Parliament should sit. It can and does have the power. However, under normal circumstances, can this provision in the Constitution be used arbitrarily or unreasonably? For example, if the Government decides tomorrow morning that Parliament should sit in the Rienzi Complex would that be considered a reasonable decision by anyone except perhaps the UNC Parliamentarians? The suggestion would be laughable.

But how does the Constitution guide us on the way the Government should exercise this power? Indeed where are the constitutional attorneys who could advise the people, or even take this matter for example before the courts and challenge the decision to evict Parliament from the Red House? The question of whether the Government has the right to put the Parliament wherever it wants should be tested in the courts and it would be interesting to see how the courts would interpret this power which the constitution gives to the government. When the present chamber was built in the pre-independence period for the Legislative Council, a ceremony was held at the Trinity Cathedral marking the occasion. The south side of this grand building was reserved for the Judiciary and the North for the Legislative chamber. Between these two arms of the State you had the offices of the Colonial Secretary, the Financial Secretary and other offices where the staff and supporting departments were housed.

It has worked well and many are satisfied that the Red House has more than enough room to house even an expanded Parliament. Therefore not because the Government has the power to move the Parliament out of the Red House should it exercise this power unreasonably or arbitrarily. Manning’s response to criticisms about the removal of Parliament was that there was a hue and cry when the PNM wanted to build the Brian Lara Promenade, which now everybody enjoys and is proud of. One fails to see how this could possibly be a real comparison. The issue of the Parliament is much deeper and this is so because Parliament is the institution that represents our democracy and it must not only be an edifice of splendour and stature, but one that personifies the spirit of democracy evident in the way we do things and make decisions. When a decision was taken to provide new housing for the Judiciary, a splendid Hall of Justice was built before the Judiciary was moved out of the Red House.

The Judiciary was not just evicted and put into some temporary accommodation while we searched around for permanent accommodation. The Judiciary was treated with the respect it deserved. Why is not the same type of respect shown to Parliament? The Government is yet to say where they are going to put Parliament, no site or building has been earmarked. The order is simply to find somewhere else and get out of the Red House. A Government-led committee is said to be at odds over moving the Parliament out of the Red House and suggestions have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, with a committee member even suggesting the Rienzi Complex. Other ideas include the site where the Zoo now stands, the Princes Building Grounds. Nobody knows what is the estimated cost of moving Parliament from the Red House into another building including a temporary one, but we can be assured that it will be very, very expensive.

The problem in this country is that the Executive, which feels it can do anything it wants despite public sentiment, fails to realise that it gets its power from the people. The British Parliament has the power to enact any law it wants but it knows that if the people does not want that law they cannot succeed with it. Our Executive here is yet to appreciate that basic fact. What is the real purpose behind the removal of Parliament? Is it that Manning can have his office in the restored Red House which will indeed be a splendid edifice? Is he virtually putting his office above Parliament? And is this not a very dangerous development for our democracy?