A source of concern

Because some silly, self-righteous MP might lose no time in suggesting to Speaker Barendra Sinanan that I’m in contempt of Parliament, I will not — not yet — hand myself on a platter to the congressmen and women of TT by telling you exactly what occurred in that Red House room the afternoon three of Newsday’s reporters were interrogated by the Privileges Committee. I, there not to “testify,” but to provide support to the trio of reporters, intend however, to share with you — now the Committee’s report is in the public domain — some of my thoughts that evening on the Committee’s investigation of the September 2004 tearoom altercation between Dr Keith Rowley, PNM MP and Chandresh Sharma, UNC peer.

Uppermost in my mind during the three hours I sat in the committee room was a key question I had for Sinanan and the rest of his panel: “You don’t think this is a kangaroo court?” In my opinion, the Privileges Committee was acting as if it was a tribunal yet it had put in place few of the safeguards of natural justice that protect both the accused and the witnesses. The main obstacle in the path to achieving the semblance of fairness was that the hearings were being conducted in secret, a stumbling block exacerbated by Government’s dominance over the Committee.

Justice, in these veiled and uneven circumstances, would and could never be seen to be done. I could also detect several other procedural shortcomings, but I will not reveal these here today, again on pain of contempt of Parliament. I will say though that I was also wondering why the press was there at all. No reporter had been present in the Parliament’s tearoom a few months before when the two men had clashed. Yet we, the oft dubbed “unreliable” media by these very men and women of the Privileges Committee had been summoned to “testify” in the matter of the tearoom brawl. Would our testimony not be considered hearsay in a proper court of law?

I could only conclude that the Committee could not rely on its own people to get the complete story and that our presence was an indictment of the whole House. I felt like saying to Speaker Sinanan, “Why are you harassing us? But look Rowley and Sharma sitting right behind you. And what about the other MPs who were there that day? You can’t get the truth from them?” I was also considering whether I should point out to the Committee, “but look at how two big men who had words and broke a teacup have us wasting our time.” As far as I knew, heated exchanges were par for the course in the parliamentary tearoom so this argument should have stayed right there and probably would have had it not been for the UNC’s desire to upstage Patrick Manning’s Caricom conference at the Crowne Plaza hotel.

A brawl had been made out of a spat for political gain and that was that. We should really all end this farce and go home I wanted to tell the Speaker. But, ever aware of Parliament’s powers and jurisdiction, I never said a word of what was on my mind. (I will tell you however, that the Committee still found Newsday’s reporters quite unaccommodating.) You couldn’t and would not get the same verbal restraint from me if the two officers from Scotland Yard hired by the Prime Minister to investigate leaks to the media of confidential correspondence on the Chief Justice rang me up, asking for an interview. I’d have to inform them “toute suite” that it was a piece of cheek for them to come to my country to ask a journalist questions about his or her sources, sources which I would not ever reveal even to the TT police or to a court of this land for that matter.

The court would have to find me in contempt. I would also let them know that in my view, the Prime Minister had no right engaging the services of any policeman, local or foreign used, to hound anyone. I’d conclude by suggesting they caught the next plane back to good ole England. There would be no face to face interview. Unlike the hearing of the Privileges Committee, this would be one farce I would be skipping. I would not be party to what could only be a scheme to make the Government appear to have clean hands and intentions with regard to Chief Justice Sat Sharma. Well you tell me what else this Scotland Yard probe was about?

The Prime Minister knew well when he brought in Scotland Yard detectives to question reporters that none of these was in a position to reveal his or her sources because such an act would be professional suicide. And why should the reporters help the Prime Minister in his “quest” to locate leaks? No politician would ever come to their rescue — politicians were always the first to tell reporters not to call their names and to let them know that if these journalists were sued for libel they would deny ever telling them anything.

So, journalists beware. This Government is demonstrating that in order to achieve its political objectives, it has no qualms about asking reporters to “assist” it in its secret investigations and no problem putting pressure on these journalists to reveal their sources. It is a habit which we, the media, must encourage the Government to kick before it becomes injurious to the health of our Constitution and one of its guaranteed rights, freedom of the press. Our sources are our business. In every sense of the word.
suz@itrini.com