?I was, frankly, amazed by the contributions of some PNM Members of Parliament in the House of Representatives this past week. For a party that used to boast of never washing its dirty linen in public, it has certainly reversed that position. It was a debate on the Validation Bill, in respect of the Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Industry, but the ordinary listener might have thought the debate was about whether Keith Rowley was fired from the Cabinet for his complaints about Udecott, the state-owned company responsible for "fast-tracking" of government construction projects. On Monday, Rowley said: "Calder Hart, the chairman of Udecott, goes to Calder Hart, the chairman of the Home Mortgage Bank, and orders $170 million and hands to the contractor (who had a contract of) $134 million."
He said the contract was awarded to Hafeez Karamath Ltd with no competition, no tender, and that "Hart from Udecott borrows from Hart from Home Mortgage Bank $170 million." Rowley claimed that the PNM stood for principles of morality in public affairs, and these were coming under attack. Further, the next election would be the "Udecott election." He reminded us of the stigma from the O'Halloran scandal that affected the PNM's ability to campaign for elections in the 1980s. He said he was breaking the PNM mould to make a new shape, and he was doing so on behalf of the PNM "people." Rowley went further, claiming that he was dismissed from the Cabinet and slandered for misconduct. He asked: "Do me a favour, Prime Minister, in this debate. Get up and tell the country what I did in the Cabinet."
PNM's response
The response began with Imbert, who pointed out that Hart only became HMB chairman in late 2008, and the HMB chairman at the time of the loan in question was Andre Monteil. Imbert said Rowley's allegation was inaccurate, since the loan for the project of $134 million was VAT-exclusive and included legal fees and duties, all of which would have increased the figure to $170 million. His statements were mild, compared to those of Minister Abdul-Hamid, who called Rowley, among other things, "a self-serving hypocrite" who, on his own account, remained silent for five years prior to his firing in 2008. Why did he not speak of bid-rigging then? The contributions of Imbert and Abdul-Hamid were, however, just preludes to the main course by the Prime Minister.
He underpinned his contribution with the statement that the attacks of Rowley and the Opposition against Udecott were really aimed at the Prime Minister and his Government. He said in respect of a photo of his former Cabinet Minister, making his contribution in Parliament two days before, "I see hate; I see bitterness; I see acrimony; I see animosity, and I see a man completely out of control." He claimed that he was aware of the tendency of Rowley to go out of control since 1987, but it worsened from 1996 onwards, when "something happened." The PM (presumably responding to Rowley's insinuation that he did nothing to justify his firing) then clearly pointed the finger at Rowley as an angry man who, if you oppose him, he becomes a "raging bull." He said last year he had enough of it, as he could not allow Rowley to remain in Cabinet and adversely influence the many new ministers.
He called Rowley a bully, who car ?question (except on a specific motion), and any Member who does so is out of order." Mr Speaker, thus far during this Ninth Parliament several matters of privilege have been raised in both Houses regarding breach of privilege and contempt, and I am sure that we are now all familiar with the learnings, on this matter, found in May's Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, on page 128. He says, "...any act or omission which obstructs of impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."
Further in the text, May details the types of acts and behaviours which, over time, have been deemed by the UK House of Commons to constitute contempt, and among these can be found "constructive" contempts such as speeches and writings reflecting negatively upon the character or conduct of individual members in their parliamentary roles. It is important to note that in order to establish that a contempt has been committed on this ground, the words "complained of" must reflect on the Member in the discharge of his or her duties in respect of some proceeding in the House or in Committee and not merely arising out of the Member's status as a public figure.
Some of the most serious reflections on Members that can be made concern those against the character of the Speaker, and accusations that the Speaker or some other presiding officer has shown partiality or bias in discharging his or her duties, since reflections on the official conduct of the Speaker are direct attacks on the very institution of the Parliament itself. That is why the House has provided a mechanism for Members to air their concerns about the conduct of a Speaker. Members are aware that any Member could bring a substantive motion for debate in the House in order to have the House consider the conduct of the Speaker. To do otherwise, is to disregard the rules of this honourable House and to engage in behaviours that are certain to bring the House into odium and ridicule.