Prime Minister Patrick Manning, left, shares
a joke with PNM’s Arima MP Pennelope Beckles
and Opposition MP Jack Warner in the
Parliament chamber, yesterday.
PHOTO: KEITH MATTHEWS

House Speaker Barendra Sinanan yesterday vetoed Government’s bid to have UNC deputy leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar brought before Parliament’s Privileges committee for making allegations against Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Tesheira, recently. “I rule that the matter referred to me does not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege warranting its referral to the committee of Privileges,” Sinanan said yesterday.

PNM’s Colm Imbert last week sought to have Persad-Bissessar referred to the Privileges committee for allegations she had made during last week’s debate on legislation to assist CL Financial. Imbert said the implication of Persad-Bissessar’s remarks was that she was accusing the minister of having committed a criminal offence—of using insider information on a financial situation at Clico for personal gain, he said.

Imbert said the accusation was a breach of privilege, since he said Persad-Bissessar did not produce any evidence to back up her allegations. However, yesterday, Speaker Sinanan, in a six page ruling, said members have a duty to expose anything in the nature of corruption on the part of other members, but they must not do this by making veiled suggestions in the course of debate.

Sinanan also said a dispute between two members about questions of fact uttered in debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate. “In the instant case, I believe the Minister of Finance has properly and adequately responded to the allegations made against her by the MP for Siparia (Persad Bissessar),” Sinanan added.

UNC wants answers

House Speaker Barendra Sinanan’s ruling is appropriate in all the circumstances, UNC deputy leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar said, yesterday. However she added that the UNC was considering filing a substantive motion on the issue discussed in the recent debate on CL Financial and will be filing questions on the issue.

Commenting during the Parliamentary tea-break, Persad Bissessar said:
“The ruling is appropriate in all the circumstances. However, the Minister clearly admitted that monies were withdrawn before the CL bailout. However, also, she has denied using insider information. Be that as it may, the explanation causes more questions. “Firstly, how many other persons requested money at the end of December and beginning of January but were not given their money? Minister Conrad Enill also said NGC had requested money and got some, but who else requested and didn’t get money? That calls for answers.”

She said, “A further question concerns monies for a car. I know in the Budget that taxes for cars were raised. Did the Minister, at the time of buying the car, know she was going to raise taxes on cars?” “Thirdly, the Minister said she withdrew monies to purchase a property and entered an agreement of September 17 and the completion date was December 17. So how could the Minister say she requested money on December 31 when the completion date for the property was December 17? I checked the Hansard record on that.”

Hansard record on last week’s debate on legislation to assist CL Financial.
Minister Karen Nunez-Tesheira:
“Again, I have to defend myself. In defending myself, I bring to the attention of the honourable House, that like many people, we have accounts and make investments. I, like many people, made two investments, one a property, an apartment, and in entering into the contract to purchase that apartment, it was September 17. The date of completion was December 17, 2008. During that period of time, I made withdrawals, not only from CMMB, but also from other accounts that I had. I will not go into any details. They are free to check, as they did with the Integrity Commission. I made withdrawals on September 17, December 03 and December 17, to pay for that property.”