Rowley questions timing of Sharma’s request

Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley seems to be seeing something odd about the timing of the judicial review application of Chandresh Sharma and the Committee of  Privileges’ finalisation of its report on the teacup brawl incident. Rowley told reporters yesterday it was he who was at risk of suffering penalties from the Committee of Privileges and he was prepared to subject himself to the committee’s findings. He was therefore puzzled that Sharma, the accuser and his lawyers wanted the matter withdrawn. Rowley said he was there and saw all the evidence tendered in the (Privileges) Committee and was eagerly awaiting its report. “But for some strange reason,” the UNC decided that Parliament was not the body to adjudicate on the matter. It wanted  now to smear the Parliament, the DPP, in furtherance of its  narrow political objective, he noted.

He said the UNC was merely seeking to frustrate the work of the Parliament, which had gathered evidence and heard witnesses on the issue. Even worse, Rowley said Sharma and his lawyers, which included Kamla Persad-Bissessar wanted the Parliament to violate the Standing Orders by agreeing to his petition to have privileged documents and information made public. The petition was presented last Friday to the Parliament, and refused. Rowley also pointed out that it was the second time that a petition from Sharma was rejected. The minister produced a copy of a petition filed by Sharma in May 1997 seeking to get information for a lawsuit. (The matter involved Ishwar Galbaransingh’s challenge of the Deyalsingh Report). The House of Representatives, in which the UNC had a majority denied his petition, he said.

Rowley slammed Persad-Bissessar for misleading the country when she said that never before in the history of Trinidad and Tobago had  Parliament ever denied such a petition. Rowley said Standing Order 81 stated that the proceedings of and any evidence taken before any Select Committee (which includes the Privileges Committee,) any document presented to and decisions of such a committee should not be published before the committee has presented its report to the House. He said Sharma and “his friends” were asking the Parliament to breach this Standing Order.

He said Persad-Bissessar was not content to tell the country that Sharma was on drips in the hospital (when this was not so); she wasn’t content to come to the Parliament and as the lawyer for Sharma violate the Standing Order by advocating a petition on his behalf, but her “naked unvarnished” untruths went further. Responding to Persad-Bissessar’s statement that the Government was protecting the DPP who was in turn protecting Rowley,  Rowley stated that he did not need anybody’s protection.

“I will welcome all of them in a court of law to try and justify the lies they have been telling since September 15,” he said. He reiterated that Sharma’s allegations against him was a UNC conspiracy based on a tissue of lies and they never expected it to be the subject of a proper investigation. Referring to his expulsion from the Parliament for an indefinite period during the UNC’s tenure, Rowley said the record showed that the Parliament has never protected him.