KE­JAN HAYNES

Lead Ed­i­tor – News­gath­er­ing

House Speak­er Jagdeo Singh dis­missed con­cerns about gov­ern­ment ac­count­abil­i­ty in Par­lia­ment to­day as a “tired old sto­ry” while de­fend­ing Home­land Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Roger Alexan­der's re­fusal to an­swer ques­tions tied to the on­go­ing State of Emer­gency and al­leged threats against se­nior law en­force­ment of­fi­cers.

The clash erupt­ed af­ter Mar­vin Gon­za­les chal­lenged the Gov­ern­ment’s de­ci­sion to in­voke Stand­ing Or­der 28(3), which al­lows a min­is­ter to de­cline to an­swer a par­lia­men­tary ques­tion if, “in his opin­ion the pub­li­ca­tion of the an­swer would be con­trary to the pub­lic in­ter­est.”

The same pro­vi­sion al­so ap­pears un­der Stand­ing Or­der 27 gov­ern­ing ur­gent ques­tions.

Gon­za­les had asked Roger Alexan­der two ques­tions:

“i. how many per­sons have been charged un­der the An­ti-Gang Act since the de­c­la­ra­tion of the State of Emer­gency on March 03, 2026; and

ii. whether any­one has been charged in re­la­tion to the al­leged plot to mur­der se­nior law en­force­ment of­fi­cers in Trinidad and To­ba­go?”

Alexan­der de­clined to an­swer.

“I am con­strained to in­voke the pro­vi­sions of Stand­ing Or­der 28 (3). Of the Stand­ing Or­ders, Mr. Speak­er, out of def­er­ence for the work of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice,” he said.

When Gon­za­les at­tempt­ed to ask a sup­ple­men­tal ques­tion, Singh stopped him im­me­di­ate­ly.

“Have a seat. If the Min­is­ter in­vokes the pub­lic in­ter­est ex­cep­tion in 28(3). And 28(3) is very clear,” Singh said.

“A Min­is­ter may de­cline to an­swer a ques­tion if, in his opin­ion, the pub­li­ca­tion of the an­swer would be con­trary to the pub­lic in­ter­est.”

Singh then chal­lenged Gon­za­les to jus­ti­fy why a sup­ple­men­tal ques­tion should even be al­lowed.

“What pos­si­ble sup­ple­men­tal ques­tion could arise from the blan­ket in­vo­ca­tion of the pub­lic in­ter­est ex­cep­tion? I need you to jus­ti­fy why a sup­ple­men­tal ques­tion aris­es in those cir­cum­stances. I don't wish to be re­galed with the tired old sto­ry of ac­count­abil­i­ty and all of that, which you've tra­versed here be­fore.”

The Speak­er’s re­marks prompt­ed Gon­za­les to ar­gue that the ques­tions dealt di­rect­ly with is­sues used by the Gov­ern­ment to jus­ti­fy the State of Emer­gency.

“And for the ben­e­fit of the view­ing pub­lic, Mr. Speak­er, the cit­i­zens of Trinidad and To­ba­go who are look­ing at these pro­ceed­ings, these ques­tions are filed in or­der to get the ex­ec­u­tive arm of the state to ac­count for crit­i­cal mat­ters of gov­er­nance in Trinidad and To­ba­go,” Gon­za­les said.

“The ques­tion that was filed for the Min­is­ter was ba­si­cal­ly to ask the Min­is­ter whether per­sons have been charged un­der the An­ti Gang Act since the state of emer­gency and whether any­one has been charged in re­la­tion to the al­leged plot to mur­der se­nior law en­force­ment of­fi­cers in Trinidad and To­ba­go.”

“These ques­tions are in the pub­lic in­ter­est, Mr. Speak­er, be­cause, Mr. Speak­er, this coun­try, this coun­try is un­der a state of emer­gency based on these fac­tors and the peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go are de­serv­ing of an­swers to these crit­i­cal things.”

Gon­za­les was in­ter­rupt­ed be­fore he could fin­ish.

Singh de­fend­ed the stand­ing or­der, ar­gu­ing that Par­lia­ment it­self de­lib­er­ate­ly cre­at­ed the pub­lic in­ter­est ex­cep­tion.

“The fun­da­men­tal ques­tion the en­tire body col­lec­tive­ly has to an­swer is if it were not in­tend­ed for the pub­lic, the pub­lic in­ter­est ex­cep­tion to ap­ply, then why in­clude it in these stand­ing or­ders?” Singh asked.

He said the ex­cep­tion ap­pears across sev­er­al cat­e­gories of par­lia­men­tary ques­tion­ing, giv­ing min­is­ters dis­cre­tionary au­thor­i­ty to with­hold an­swers.

“So each tier of ques­tion­ing the par­lia­ment col­lec­tive­ly as a body has giv­en the min­is­ter the resid­ual dis­cre­tionary pow­er to refuse to de­cline the an­swer.”

“I don't want to say refuse be­cause that's a strong word, but in neu­tral term would be to de­cline the an­swer.”

Singh, who is an at­tor­ney and had no pre­vi­ous par­lia­men­tary ex­pe­ri­ence be­fore be­com­ing Speak­er, then re­ferred to the courts, some­thing he fre­quent­ly does dur­ing de­bates in the House.

“Where the pub­lic in­ter­est ex­cep­tion is in­voked, a judge at com­mon law has the dis­cre­tionary pow­er to say, let me see that ma­te­r­i­al and I will make a de­ci­sion based on the fair­ness of the tri­al,” he said.

“There are no fair­ness con­cerns here. So, I have no pow­er to go be­hind the in­vo­ca­tion of the pub­lic in­ter­est.”

“All right. The in­vo­ca­tion of the pub­lic in­ter­est seems to be an ab­solute bar. The way these stand­ing or­ders are con­struct­ed.”