There has been at least one instance within recent times that an Independent senator, appointed by the outgoing president, resigned to allow the incoming head of state to replace him. It was a personal decision of Dr Dhanayshar Mahabir in 2018 to step down when Justice Paula-Mae Weeks was elected as President.
As pointed out in this newspaper, there is no constitutional requirement for Independent senators to leave their seats on the election of a new President.
The present call by at least two Opposition Members of Parliament for the current team of Independents to resign from the Senate is lodged in the politics.
It is not that there has not been the playing-out of party conflict in the Upper chamber, with usually whichever party is then in opposition complaining about Independents voting with the government on bills and other matters. However, this demand by Opposition members for the Independents to resign as a group to allow new President Christine Kangaloo to make her own selection is of another kind.
When the Upper House was initiated by then-prime minister, Dr Eric Williams, and with the establishment of the Independent bench, the intention was to allow voices separate from the political parties to be heard in the new bicameral legislature. There was no intention of the Independents to consistently vote with either side of the Upper House; if their individual views coincided with government or opposition, then so should their votes be cast.
Over the decades since then, Independent senators have voted with and against whichever government was in power on bills of national interest. The practice has also sprung up that on critical proposed legislation, both government and opposition have sought to persuade, in a quite legitimate and above-board manner, Independents of the validity of their position on the proposed laws.
One question to be asked is on what basis are the Opposition MPs Rudranath Indarsingh and Barry Padarath now demanding the Independents appointed by a previous president to resign their positions in the Senate; more so when there is no constitutional requirement for them to do so?
This is surely an attempt to get back at the present group of Independents who may have voted with the Government on particular pieces of legislation, as is their right to do.
Moreover, if the Independents were to resign on the bidding of the Opposition, where will this power to have such senators exit office stop? Will the Opposition then be empowered by practice to determine who should be the choices of the President to place on the Independent benches?
The fact is having made appointments to the Senate, not even the President can dictate to the senators on how they should vote. And surely, the constitutional appointments of the Independents do not make them “beholden” to the former president of the Senate, now President of the Republic.
It is certainly within the power of the Opposition to place before the Parliament and on the hustings a draft which advocates constitutional change to determine how and when the Independent bench should be changed; bullying will not, however, do.