Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Persed-Bisses­sar is call­ing for the im­me­di­ate res­ig­na­tion of Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley.

She made the call while mak­ing a state­ment in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives this af­ter­noon on the "Email­gate" mat­ter.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar told leg­is­la­tors a let­ter dat­ed May 19, 2015 , from the com­mis­sion said there was "no or in­suf­fi­cient grounds for con­tin­u­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

Here is the full text of her state­ment:

PER­SON­AL STATE­MENT OF PRIME MIN­IS­TER

HOUSE OF REP­RE­SEN­TA­TIVES

20TH MAY 2015

RE: NO CON­FI­DENCE MO­TION OF MAY 20TH 2013

Mr. Speak­er,it was ex­act­ly two years ago, on May 20th 2013, that the Mem­ber for Diego Mar­tin West pi­lot­ed a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence in this very house against me.

It was ju­s­tone of a num­ber of no con­fi­dence mo­tions brought by the op­po­si­tion against me and mem­bers of my gov­ern­ment and we have stood here and an­swered every al­le­ga­tion. We have nev­er wa­vered in our com­mit­ment to ac­count­abil­i­ty and trans­paren­cy.

That mo­tion of no con­fi­dence was so may say by them well-timed � the Mem­ber was pi­lot­ing it on the eve of the 3rdan­niver­sary of the elec­tion of the Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship in­to gov­ern­ment.

He based his mo­tion on a doc­u­ment which he claimed to have re­ceived in his mail­boxsix months pri­or to bring­ing it be­fore this Ho­n­ourable House.

That doc­u­ment, he said, con­tained 31 emails which he al­leged were ex­changed be­tween the for­mer AG and my­self, along with oth­er se­nior cab­i­net min­is­ters in­clud­ing the Mem­bers for Tabaquite and Oropouche East,

The no con­fi­dence mo­tion was a sharp,pre­med­i­tatedand dan­ger­ous dag­ger aimed at the very heart of the gov­ern­ment with sur­gi­cal po­lit­i­cal pre­ci­sion.

It was clear that the mo­tive be­hind this move was to desta­bi­lize my gov­ern­ment.

In­deed, had it suc­ceed­ed, I would have been forced to re­sign as Prime Min­is­ter.

THE EMAIL AL­LE­GA­TIONS

The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion pros­e­cut­ed a casea­gainst me and mem­bers of my Cab­i­net in the court of pub­lic opin­ion through this House, his on­ly ev­i­dence be­ing the­con­tents of those al­leged emails.

He al­so in­sin­u­at­ed that we were at­tempt­ing to ma­nip­u­late the jus­tice sys­tem by hav­ing the DPP re­moved from of­fice­by of­fer­ing a ju­di­cial ap­point­men­tand plan­ning to use the cor­rupt pro­ceeds of our crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty to build a he­li­pad for the for­mer AG.

I sat right here Mr. Speak­er in shock, dis­be­lief, and hor­ror as the leader of the op­po­si­tion made these most se­ri­ous al­le­ga­tions against us.

Isat an­dlis­tened as he con­struct­ed a treach­er­ous tale about a crim­i­nal con­spir­a­cy­be­ing hatched by the du­ly elect­ed gov­ern­ment of this coun­try.

I knew at the time that the state­ments were false and the al­le­ga­tions un­true.

I won­dered how a man with as­pi­ra­tions to lead this coun­try could abuse his of­fice in such a man­ner.

Un­like the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion, I took swift ac­tion.I did not wait six months to act.

I im­me­di­ate­ly re­ject­ed these emails as fraud­u­lent, fake and fic­ti­tious.

Ire­ferred the mat­ter to the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice for in­ves­ti­ga­tion forth­with and learnt that the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was al­ready siesed of the mat­ter.

I un­der­stood the ef­fect these dis­clo­sures would have, not on­ly on the pop­u­la­tion, but on the in­ter­na­tion­al im­age of this coun­try.

The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion read in­to the record of this Ho­n­ourable House the con­tents of these al­leged emails.

The­se­outra­geous,false­and scan­dalous al­le­ga­tion­ssen­ta chill down the spine of the body politic.

No onecould­be­lievethat a man who as­pires to be this coun­try's Prime Min­is­ter would be so reck­less and ir­re­spon­si­ble as to put on the record of the Par­lia­ment such a se­ri­ous mat­ter­with­out any cor­rob­o­ra­tion or any in­quiry from the rel­e­vant au­thor­i­ties.

Any rea­son­able per­son would have­as­sumed that he had done his due dili­gence, checked the au­then­tic­i­ty of the doc­u­ment and was sat­is­fied that it had crossed a min­i­mum and rea­son­able thresh­old of in­de­pen­dent ver­i­fi­ca­tion.

CLEAR­ANCE BY THE IN­TEGRI­TY COM­MIS­SION

Since these state­ments were made in this Hon­or­able House there has been a cloud over this coun­try and my gov­ern­ment.

The al­le­ga­tions have caused a sense of fear and sus­pi­cion to take root among some mem­bers of the pop­u­la­tion, and right­ly so, hav­ing re­gard to the se­ri­ous­ness of the al­le­ga­tions.

Giv­en the ob­vi­ous in­tent of the state­ments and the ef­fect it has had on this coun­tryI con­sid­er it my du­ty to in­form this Ho­n­ourable House and theN­ation about the con­tents of a let­ter my lawyers re­ceived yes­ter­day dat­ed May 19th2015 from the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

In that let­ter cap­tioned "In­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to al­leged 'Email af­fair' by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion", the Reg­is­trar stat­ed:

"... the Com­mis­sion, pur­suant to sec­tion 34(6) of the Act is sat­is­fied that there are no or in­suf­fi­cient grounds for con­tin­u­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the above mat­ter and ac­cord­ing­ly this in­ves­ti­ga­tion is here­by ter­mi­nat­ed."

You may re­call that Google Inc. filed a sworn de­c­la­ra­tion in the Cal­i­for­nia Courts, in a case filed by for­mer AG Anand Ram­lo­gan, con­firm­ing that the pur­port­ed emails and email ac­coun­tanan@gmail.com­did not ex­ist and were there­fore fake.

In­stead of apol­o­gis­ing and with­draw­ing the al­le­ga­tions, the Mem­ber re­spond­ed by say­ing the for­mer AG had cleared him­self. "Him­self un­to Him­self" he cried!!

We must must await the out­come of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion by thein­de­pen­dentIn­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion!

That was the chant then...

The one thing that the mem­ber and I agree on is that the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion is an in­de­pen­dent in­sti­tu­tion.

I there­fore un­der­stood his per­sis­tence and burn­ing de­sire to have the mat­ter in­ves­ti­gat­ed by such an in­de­pen­dent body.

The In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion is es­tab­lished un­der Sec­tions 138 and 139 of the Con­sti­tu­tion. Its in­de­pen­dence is there­fore con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ed as mem­bers are ap­point­ed by the Pres­i­dent af­ter con­sul­ta­tion with the Prime Min­is­ter and Leader of the Op­po­si­tion.

The Com­mis­sion is chaired by re­tired Court of Ap­peal Judge Mr Jus­tice Zain­ool Ho­sein whose tenure in the Ju­di­cia­ry spanned ap­prox­i­mate­ly 15 years.

The deputy chair­man is re­tired Jus­tice Mr Se­bas­t­ian Ven­tor who al­so served as a judge of the Supreme Court for 14 years.

The oth­er mem­bers ap­point­ed by His Ex­cel­len­cy in­clude Mr. Pe­te Lon­don - Ac­coun­tant, Dr Shelly-Ann Lalchan- Sur­geon and Mr. De­onar­ine Jag­ger­nath, a pe­tro­le­um and en­vi­ron­men­tal en­gi­neer.

There are some that may have ques­tioned the in­tegri­ty of this com­mis­sion and that is why I have tak­en the time to de­scribe the process by which they have been ap­point­ed.

PREF­ER­ENCE FOR IC IN­VES­TI­GA­TION

The Ho­n­ourable Mem­ber has, re­peat­ed­ly ex­pressed a clear pref­er­ence for an in­ves­ti­ga­tion by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion over that of the po­lice ser­vice.

In an ar­ti­cle en­ti­tled "Row­ley knocks top cop" in theTrinidad Ex­press on Ju­ly 8th2013, the mem­ber in­sist­ed that the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was the prop­er body in law to in­ves­ti­gate this mat­ter.

This was re­peat­ed by him sev­er­al times in the me­dia as he ap­peared to be cam­paign­ing for the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion to con­duct this in­ves­ti­ga­tion­in­stead of the po­lice ser­vice.

In­deed, the Mem­ber's first step in this mat­ter was to in­vite His Ex­cel­len­cy Pres­i­dent George Maxwell Richards to re­fer this mat­ter to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

The for­mer Pres­i­dent sent the doc­u­ments to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion and la­t­er­it was re­vealed,the Mem­ber for Diego Mar­tin West­had held a se­cret meet­ing with then Chair­man Ken Gor­don at his home, in the dead of night, on the eve of his mo­tion of no con­fi­dence back in 2013 -such was his im­pa­tience to have this mat­ter brought be­fore the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

Well,there is an old say­ing Mr. Speak­er ... be care­ful what you ask for be­cause you might get it!

Per­mit me to quote from the mem­ber's con­tri­bu­tion in this very House on May 22nd2013 dur­ing the de­bate on the no con­fi­dence mo­tion:

"So it went to the Pres­i­dent. It is my un­der­stand­ing and my con­fir­ma­tion is that the Pres­i­dent, af­ter his own de­lib­er­a­tion on his own vo­li­tion sent it to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

Why the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion?

The In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, Mr. Speak­er, is the lo­ca­tion in this coun­try where cer­tain per­sons by the of­fice they hold fall un­der the pow­er of that body of the Con­sti­tu­tion, where­as oth­er cit­i­zens are not.

The on­ly peo­ple in this coun­try who fall un­der the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion are of­fice hold­ers who hold cer­tain of­fices. And if they mis­con­duct them­selves, this Com­mis­sion is there to in­ter­vene on be­half of the State.

Mr. Speak­er, let me just read for you to re­mind you the pow­er of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.....

And when some­thing comes to me that points to se­ri­ous high crimes in the Of­fice of Trinidad and To­ba­go, I have a du­ty to en­sure that the best in­ves­ti­ga­tion is at­tached to that of­fice un­der oath."

Mr. Speak­er, I want to re­mind you that I said that the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion has that pow­er su­pe­ri­or to po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion, and the in­ves­ti­ga­tor of the Com­mis­sion has the pow­er to vir­tu­al­ly com­mand the co­op­er­a­tion from any per­son in an in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

Once a per­son is des­ig­nat­ed an in­ves­ti­gat­ing of­fi­cer of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, that per­son car­ries the tremen­dous pow­er that this Par­lia­ment gives that of­fice..

Well Mr. Speak­er, the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion did in fact use itsvast­pow­ers un­der the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act to in­ves­ti­gate this mat­ter.

They sued Google Inc in the Supreme Court in Cal­i­for­nia.

They asked for un­re­strict­ed ac­cess to our email ac­counts for the rel­e­vant pe­ri­od.

They did not con­fine them­selves to emails that were ex­changed alone � their re­quest to Google was in fact much wider � they want­ed ac­cess to every­thing in our ac­counts.

GOOGLE AF­FI­DAVIT IN AG'S CASE

The for­mer AG Anand Ram­lo­gan and I over­rode the ad­vice giv­en to us by our Amer­i­can lawyers on this is­sue and waived our le­gal rights un­der the Da­ta Pro­tec­tion and Pri­va­cy laws in the Unit­ed States and grant­ed the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion full ac­cess to our email ac­counts for every email sent and/or re­ceived in the month of Sep­tem­ber 2012

Our lawyers were not hap­py about this, but I was de­ter­mined to clear my name­and let the truth be un­veiled.

And what was the re­sult?

Google ten­dered sworn af­fi­davit ev­i­dence on March 20, 2015 to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion be­fore the Ho­n­ourable Mr. Jus­tice William H Or­rick in the North­ern Dis­trict of Cal­i­for­nia, Cal­i­for­nia Supreme Court con­firm­ing that none of these emails had ever been sent from or re­ceived by our ac­counts.

They sim­ply did not ex­ist! They were a com­plete fab­ri­ca­tion!

GOOGLE AF­FI­DAVIT IN IC'S CASE

This mir­rored the re­sult in the le­gal ac­tion tak­en by the for­mer At­tor­ney Gen­er­al against Google in the su­pe­ri­or court of the state of Cal­i­for­nia.

That case re­sult­ed in an af­fi­davit be­ing filed be­fore her Ho­n­our Jus­tice Pa­tri­cia M. Lu­cas on April 21st2014.

In that af­fi­davit, which I re­ferred to ear­li­er and which the Mem­ber re­fused to ac­cept as clear and co­gent ev­i­dence,Google's of­fi­cial cus­to­di­an of records Chi Ngyun con­firmed that there was no email ac­count such asanan@gmail.com.

It should be not­ed Mr. Speak­er that this was the pri­ma­ry email ac­count as the vast ma­jor­i­ty of the al­leged emails in that doc­u­ment was sup­pos­ed­ly sent from this fake, non-ex­is­tent email ad­dress.

The cus­to­di­an in­di­cat­ed that af­ter "dili­gent" search­es and in­quiries were made of both­anand@tstt.net.tt(the email ad­dress of the for­mer AG Anand Ram­lo­gan), Google cer­ti­fied none of the of­fen­sive emails were found to have been sent from or re­ceived by these two email ac­counts.

So any state­ment Mr Speak­er, that on­ly the ad­dress­es of the emails were found to be false is un­sus­tain­able, be­cause the search went fur­ther than just the al­leged email ad­dress­es. It in­clud­ed a search of the email ac­counts held by me and the

tar­get­ed min­is­ters. In the month of Sep­tem­ber 2012.

At every stage of this in­ves­ti­ga­tion, we have been­co­op­er­a­tive; and at every stage my min­is­ters and I have been­cleared of wrong­do­ing.

The re­sponse from the Mem­ber for Diego Mar­tin West is far from apolo­getic.

He seeks to main­tain these re­pul­sive ac­cu­sa­tions and re­peats them ad-nau­sem in an at­tempt to per­pet­u­ate the con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry which the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion and Google have dis­missed and re­ject­ed in ef­fect.

SHIFT­ING THE GOAL­POST

He can con­tin­ue to shift the goal­post all he wants, the on­ly goal he will score is an own goal.

He will con­tin­ue to re­fer to events that pre­dat­ed the fake emails doc­u­ment and re­ly up­on them as ev­i­dence that there was sub­stance in the emails. The mem­ber tried to with­in this house pre­dict­ing the past from the po­si­tion of the fu­ture, he tried to do some re­verse en­gi­neer­ing.

Such cir­cu­lar and high­lights his po­lit­i­cal des­per­a­tion as he has staked his po­lit­i­cal ca­reer on this is­sue.

Af­ter all, it was his very own­Deputy Po­lit­i­cal Leader and Chief Sec­re­tary of the THAMr. Orville Lon­don whois on record as say­ing that there are game chang­ers and there are game de­ciders, and this is a game de­cider and at the end of the ex­er­cise there is go­ing to be one man or one woman left stand­ing.

If Google says that the emails were bo­gus then Dr. Row­ley has no oth­er op­tion but to re­sign.

Mr. Michael Har­ris al­so wrote a com­men­tary on March 8thwhere he stat­ed,"should the con­clu­sions of the re­port in­di­cate that con­tents of the e-mails were not au­then­tic, then, apart from any crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings which may be in­sti­tut­ed, the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion should im­me­di­ate­ly re­sign from his po­si­tion in the par­ty and seat in Par­lia­ment."

The peo­ple of this coun­try how­ev­er, do not ex­pect the leader of the op­po­si­tion to re­sign af­ter these find­ings, as such ho­n­ourable ac­tion can on­ly be ex­pect­ed of a man of in­tegri­ty, hu­mil­i­ty and re­spect for Of­fice, qual­i­ties we hope the leader of the op­po­si­tion will one day ac­quire.

Any­one can sit and con­struct a thread of emails to cap­ture and re­flect events that have al­ready oc­curred ex post fac­to.

You then turn around and point to the sim­i­lar­i­ty of the events and the emails so that they feed off each oth­er to cre­ate the rather ten­den­tious foun­da­tion for a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry.

This will not help the Mem­ber as the truth will not bow to sin­is­ter spec­u­la­tion and hype.

It should be not­ed that at no time did the mem­ber di­rect his con­cerns to the po­lice ser­vice of Trinidad and To­ba­go.

Had I not re­ferred this mat­ter to them and de­mand­ed an ur­gent po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion the Mem­ber was quite con­tent to al­low the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion to deal with this mat­ter;such was his faith and con­fi­dence in the in­de­pen­dence and com­pe­tence of this body.

An ed­i­to­r­i­al writ­ten by Mark Fras­er and pub­lished in the Trinidad Ex­press on Au­gust 25th2014 states:-

"Dr. Row­ley made clear his lack of faith and trust in the ca­pac­i­ty of the over­stressed and un­der-re­sourced T&T po­lice to car­ry out the "Email­gate" in­ves­ti­ga­tions. It was, he in­sist­ed a mat­ter prop­er­ly to be un­der­tak­en by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, when that body would have equipped it­self with ex­pert le­gal help."

And I re­peat the words of the Mem­ber Mr. Speak­er

"I have a du­ty to en­sure thatthe best in­ves­ti­ga­tion is at­tached to that of­fice un­der oath."

The PNM's own PRO, Sen­a­tor Faris Al-Rawi is al­so quot­ed in the Trinidad Ex­press as far back as Ju­ly 17th2013 say­ing "the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was the best suit­ed to do the in­ves­ti­ga­tion"

This has been their chant through­out.

To­day, of course, I ex­pect that they will sing a dif­fer­ent tune as they con­tin­ue to shift the goal­post.

No in­ves­ti­ga­tion will be good enough un­less it sup­ports the ridicu­lous as­ser­tions made by the Mem­ber against us.

Even the best pos­si­ble in­ves­ti­ga­tion which they have been ad­vo­cat­ing and urg­ing for will not suf­fice now, be­cause the out­come does not sup­port their ul­ti­mate goal of de­stroy­ing my gov­ern­ment. What they are now sug­gest­ing is akin to per­form­ing a post mortem on a corpse that does not ex­ist!

Now they are at­tempt­ing to at­tack the in­tegri­ty of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. They now want to know the pa­ra­me­ters of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. They are look­ing to at­tack­ing the in­tegri­ty of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

I can make ref­er­ence to this glass. Here is a glass which is a ves­sel which holds the wa­ter with­in it, take away the glass, there would be no wa­ter. The same can be said about the emails.

Mr Speak­er, these fake emails have caused me great per­son­al dis­tress and an­guish as I cher­ish and jeal­ous­ly guard my char­ac­ter, rep­u­ta­tion and the trust that I have built with the Peo­ple of this­Na­tion dur­ing my 30 years of pub­lic ser­vice.

This treach­er­ous and evil plan was de­signed to de­stroy me and mem­bers of my gov­ern­ment­but it has been said that "the truth will ul­ti­mate­ly pre­vail where there is pain to bring it to light" and thank­ful­ly to­day those pains we have borne for two years have borne fruit.

This de­ter­mi­na­tion by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion was long await­ed.

I am there­fore hap­py that my col­leagues and I have been vin­di­cat­ed by this rul­ing of the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

It con­firms what we knew and have been say­ing al­la­long�"Email-Gate" was a dan­ger­ous po­lit­i­cal strat­e­gy that was doomed to fail be­cause there was ab­solute­ly no truth to it.

Email­gate is rem­i­nis­cent of, though far worse than, the ma­li­cious plant­i­ng of co­caine and mis­siles in a Min­is­ter's wa­ter tank. Which has been un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion for the last 13 years

It was a sin­is­ter and ter­ri­ble po­lit­i­cal tac­tic that was de­signed to in­flict max­i­mum dam­age, pain and suf­fer­ing for self­ish po­lit­i­cal gain.

It was yet an­oth­er­at­tempt to seek po­lit­i­cal pow­er at any and all costs and to put par­ty and pow­er be­fore coun­try and to show the true char­ac­ter of the man mak­ing the state­ments.

This lat­est vic­to­ry adds to a grow­ing list of in­de­pen­dent voic­es that have un­der­mined the cred­i­bil­i­ty of the mem­ber for Diego Mar­tin west ma­li­cious "Email-Gate" ac­cu­sa­tions.

They in­clude:

foren­sic in­ves­tiga­tive re­ports from lo­cal and for­eign re­spect­ed An­a­lysts,

a sworn Af­fi­davit from Google in re­sponse to case filed by for­mer AG Anand Ram­lo­ganS.C.,

the re­cent ev­i­dence from Google in re­sponse to the Ap­pli­ca­tion filed by the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion in Cal­i­for­nia

And the let­ter which the Deputy DPP (has in ef­fect ver­i­fied) from the Unit­ed States De­part­ment of Jus­tice which found the email ad­dres­sanan@gmail.com­does not in fact ex­ist.

The very same In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion in which Dr. Row­ley has placed the ut­most trust and con­fi­dence in their abil­i­ties, com­pe­tence and in­de­pen­dence has now joined the cho­rus in say­ing"the emails are fake! There is noth­ing left to in­ves­ti­gate"

My life Mr. Speak­er is an open book.

I have noth­ing to hide.

My hands are clean and my heart is pure.

It is of­ten said awe­some pow­er comes with awe­some re­spon­si­bil­i­ty.

As MP's we all shoul­der a re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to be true and faith­ful to this sa­cred cham­ber by en­sur­ing what is said with­in these hal­lowed walls is not said out of spite, mal­ice and vin­dic­tive­ness but a gen­uine de­sire to en­light­en and serve our con­stituents an­dour coun­try.

These fraud­u­lent and fic­ti­tious emails pro­duced by no less a per­son than the mem­ber for Diego mar­tin west rep­re­sent­ed a dark, omi­nous, dan­ger­ous and ter­ri­fy­ing day in the his­to­ry of our Par­lia­ment and na­tion.

The mem­ber was not sim­ply care­less, he was de­lib­er­ate­ly reck­lessand ir­re­spon­si­ble.

He failed and/or re­fused to take any mean­ing­ful steps to ver­i­fy the au­then­tic­i­ty of the doc­u­ment which he claims to have anony­mous­ly re­ceived in his mail­boxwhich con­tra­dicts his state­ment that he took the time to ver­i­fy their au­then­tic­i­ty be­fore bring­ing them to this House.

His reck­less in­dif­fer­ence and flip­pant dis­re­gard for the truth re­veals a per­son who was hell bent on foist­ing a crim­i­nal con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry on the pop­u­la­tion in an ef­fort to dam­age and desta­bi­lize the du­ly elect­ed gov­ern­men­tall in the pur­suit of pow­er.

They are per­sist­ing and pro­ceed­ing to det­o­nate their po­lit­i­cal bomb.

They did not spare a mo­ment's thought for the trau­ma and the stress it would cause.

They did not spare a mo­ment's thought for the vi­o­la­tion of the sanc­ti­ty of the Par­lia­ment. There­fore the let­ter from the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion al­so vin­di­cates the ac­tion tak­en by this house for the sus­pen­sion of the Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment for Diego Mar­tin West.

The mem­ber­did­not pause for a mo­ment of de­tached re­flec­tion to think about the neg­a­tive im­pact this would have on our coun­try's in­ter­na­tion­al im­age and rep­u­ta­tion.

What would peo­ple think of a coun­try run by a Prime Min­is­ter and gov­ern­ment that is in­volved in such ne­far­i­ous, evil and wicked crim­i­nal con­spir­a­cies?

The mem­ber was blind­ed for his quest for po­lit­i­cal pow­er.

He bore no al­le­giance to his coun­try and the par­lia­ment which he des­e­crat­ed.

His prob­lem is that af­ter he suc­ceed­ed the mem­ber for San-Fer­nan­do East as Po­lit­i­cal Leader and Leader of the Op­po­si­tion he did not think the Peo­ple's part­ner­ship would re­main unit­ed and strong enough to run the full course.

That is why he has brought so many mo­tions of no con­fi­dence and keeps de­mand­ing that I call ear­ly elec­tions every month, since we as­sumed of­fice in 2010.

The mem­ber must un­der­stand that pow­er comes with hu­mil­i­ty and grace not ar­ro­gance and greed.

On the 24thMay 2010 I was hum­bled that the peo­ple of my coun­try chose me to lead them and I will con­tin­ue to abide by my oath and al­ways put my coun­try and my peo­ple first.

His con­duct was ir­re­spon­si­ble and reck­less, cal­cu­lat­ed to in­jure and cause harm, de­signed to in­ject fear and cause hys­te­ria and pan­ic in an ef­fort to desta­bilise the gov­ern­ment.

I was put in the in­vid­i­ous and un­en­vi­able po­si­tion of hav­ing to dis­prove my guilt in­stead of be­ing giv­en the ben­e­fit of the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence. I was forced to prove my in­no­cence. I thank god for the ex­ter­nal agen­cies were in­volved to prove my in­no­cence in this mat­ter.

To­day, I stand vin­di­cat­ed by the very in­sti­tu­tion in which the Mem­ber said he had con­fi­dence � the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. With your leave we would like to read in­to the Hansard the let­ter from the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion.

It is my hope and ex­pec­ta­tion that the po­lice will con­clude their in­ves­ti­ga­tion short­ly in this mat­ter and I know that it will be yet an­oth­er con­fir­ma­tion of the fact that there has been no wrong­do­ing on my par­tand those that I led and con­tin­ue to lead.

It will be yet an­oth­er clear­ance from yet an­oth­er in­sti­tu­tion.

The Mem­ber can­not be ac­cused of the crim­i­nal charge of wast­ing po­lice time be­cause he nev­er made a com­plaint to the Po­lice.

I was the one who made the com­plaint to the Po­lice, not him, be­cause I al­ways knew that the doc­u­ments from which he read were bo­gus.

I ex­pect the Mem­ber will once again shift the goal­post.

He doesn't even re­al­ize that he has scored an own goal! He doesn't even re­al­ize that he has shift­ed it so far that it is no longer on the foot­ball field!

And he doesn't even re­al­ize that the game is over!

Mr. Speak­er I wish to re­call a Nurs­ery rhyme of Hump­ty Dump­ty at this point in time, the mem­bers climbed up on the high wall and from their perch they at­tacked us, with false email al­le­ga­tions and al­leged crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty. They at­tempt­ed to climb

down that wall when they boy­cotted the par­lia­ment. But the Knock­out punch came from the let­ter from dis­tin­guished In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion. Now Hump­ty Dump­ty fell off the wall and all the Op­po­si­tion hors­es and all the Op­po­si­tion Men can­not put

Hump­ty Dump­ty back to­geth­er again.

Mr. Speak­er, I re­call a quote from a great po­lit­i­cal mind, Sir Win­ston Churchill who said:

"The Truth is in­con­tro­vert­ible; mal­ice may at­tack it, ig­no­rance may de­ride it, but in the end, there it is"

Mr. Speak­er, I am pleased to stand here to­day, and say "there it is."

There is the truth which has been brought to light de­spite the at­tacks waged up­on it by a ma­li­cious mind.

The re­al con­spir­a­cy has been ex­posed and the mem­ber must now do the de­cent and ho­n­ourable thing and heed the ad­vice of his own MPs,his own deputy po­lit­i­cal leaderand ten­der his res­ig­na­tionas Leader of the Op­po­si­tion and MP for Diego Mar­tin West­forth­with!