BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – FOLLOWING his expulsion from the National Assembly for allegedly ‘laughing at the Speaker of the House, Senator Nigel Carty and other Labour Party’s Members of Parliament have accused the Hon. Michael Perkins of being biased against them.
Carty’s expulsion from the Parliament for the remainder of the day’s Debate on Thursday (Dec. 8) has it genesis in comments he made during his presentation.
He had made comments to the effect that a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was dragged out of office.
On a point of order, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Dr. the Hon. Timothy Harris objected to the comments and stated that the conduct of the Governor-General, Members of Parliament and Judges of the Supreme Court of the OECS could not be raised in the House except on a motion.
“For us to engage in a matter to do with the DPP is bringing unnecessary scrutiny with respect to the office of the court, and the Member [Senator Carty] is going down the wrong way. There is no DPP that was dragged anywhere,” Dr. Harris categorically stated.
Consequently, the Speaker of the House stated that he too was concerned “with your usage of the term the dragging of the DPP out of office”, during which time Senator Carty was seen and heard laughing.
The Speaker responded by indicating that he was disgusted with unethical behaviour in the Honourable House and brought Section 49(2) of the Standing Rules and Orders to bear on Carty.
“A member rose on a point of order, I was ruling, I was about to rule or I had begun to rule on the point of order and you chose to laugh at what I was saying. I find that to be grossly disorderly and I am applying Section 49(2). I’m asking you to immediately withdraw from the National Assembly for the rest of the day’s sitting.
“I find your act of laughing at the Speaker is totally and utterly disrespectful…”
Section 49(2) gives the Speaker or Chairperson of the House the authority to order a Member to immediately withdraw him or herself from the National Assembly if that person’s conduct is deemed “grossly disorderly”.
Following the Speaker’s ruling, Senator Carty made several attempts to request permission to address the Chair, indicating that he was not allowed to make a statement on the issue.
The Speaker however was adamant in his ruling and informed him that if he did not immediately remove himself from the House another section of the rules would have been applied.
Senator Carty complied and he was followed by the other Members of the Opposition in leaving the Honourable House.
However, on the following morning, Carty, Leader of the Opposition the Rt. Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas, the Hon. Marcella Liburd and the Hon. Konris Maynard were guests on WINN FM’s ‘Good Morning Caribbean’ programme, where it was announced that the Opposition would boycott the remainder of the Budget Debates.
At that forum, Carty took the opportunity to publicly air his views on the issue.
“As I got into my presentation, I found that my use of very ordinary and simple words began to become a point of contention in the Parliament. I said that the Government had denied six young persons who had gone to Cuba the opportunity to be employed. I thought that that was proper language for Parliament. It’s a point of debate, the Government can respond and say we have not denied, these are what the facts are or this is what the situation is. So I was asked by the Speaker to retract those words.
“Then I used the word dragged, basically indicating that the DPP was dragged from office. Again, someone from the Government, I think it was the Honourable Eugene Hamilton, raised concerns over my use of the word. I was speaking about the Government...I didn’t speak to any person in the Government, and that became a problem.”
He continued: “At that same moment or thereabout, the Member for Number Seven, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance got up and seemed to be raising a point of order under Rule 42, Sub-Section 8 of Sub-Rule 8, which says: ‘The conduct of the Governor-General, the Administrator, Members of the House, Judges of the Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.’”
Carty said he chuckled because he had recognised what the Prime Minister was referring to was “really a red herring”.
“The DPP is not mentioned, for one, and, number two, the Section speaks to Members making comments about the conduct of those individuals. Thereupon, the Speaker said that I laughed at him because he was going to make a ruling on the point of order raised,” Carty stated.
The Senator claimed to have found the situation to be a very disturbing one and offered an explanation for his belief.
“If the Member on the Government Bench brought a point of order in relation to the Section I just read, I thought that after his point of order I would be allowed to clarify, to say why that is on a point of order or what have you. I didn’t know that the Speaker had just wanted to rule, make a ruling without hearing my side. But in any case, even if he was going to rule and I chuckled at what the Member on the opposite side was saying, nobody thought that that would generate some point upon which the Speaker would say that he was disrespected and that somebody ought to be kicked out of the House of Assembly.”
Prior to Senator Carty’s expulsion and following the Prime Minister’s presentation of the 2017 Budget on Wednesday (Dec. 7) the Speaker informed that he had observed “a level of conduct emanating from some Members, which is totally unbecoming of good parliamentary practice and procedure” and that he would no longer tolerate such behaviour.
“I want to advise and announce at this point that I am of the view that this particular sitting and session of Parliament that we have reached a turning point. We have reached a turning into the extent that I, as the Chair, would not be tolerating too much more of what has obtained in the Parliament.
“I will not tolerate any level or further level of disrespect to the Chair. It is totally and completely out of order for any Member to show dissent, criticism or have any kind of difficulty with the decisions of the Chair. That is totally unparliamentarily, it’s totally disrespectful and so I would not be tolerating anymore of that.”
Although the Speaker did not mention the name of any Member, he however recalled a couple of incidents of disrespect which he said had taken him by surprise.
“I have seen, I have heard some of the most disrespectful utterances coming from Members of this Parliament. I could recall at one point a Member actually said: ‘You aine know wah u doing!’ I heard him but he deflected and indicated he was not speaking to me. In the future I would be the sole judge as to whether or not any such statement is directed to me and I will deal with that accordingly.
“I have heard a Member actually shouting down the Speaker asking to give an order: ‘What’s your ruling? What’s your ruling?’ I must admit it is only after I studied the video tape of that particular sitting I really got an appreciation of the manner and the disrespect that was shown in that particular instance, because the Member said not less than five or six times: ‘What is your ruling?’ in a very vociferous and angry manner. That was totally and completely out of order.
“I’ve heard and seen even facial expressions showing dissent to rulings of the Chair, and I’m saying to you Honourable Members that this is it.”
The Opposition MPs are however of the view that Speaker Perkins is biased against them and the accusation dates back to even when he was Deputy Speaker of the House.
Speaking on the WINN FM’s programme, MP Maynard, the Parliamentary Representative for Constituency Three, made reference to a number of past incidents in which he claimed Speaker Perkins had been biased against Labour MPs.
He wistfully recalled that during the sitting of a past Income Tax Bill when Deputy Perkins was chairing the proceedings in the absence of the then Speaker of the House, the Hon. Franklin Brand, he had ruled that the House be closed even though a Member of the Opposition had risen to make his contribution.
“The Honourable Member for St. Christopher Seven and the Honourable Senator stood to speak. The Honourable Deputy Speaker ruled that his eyes had caught the Member for St. Christopher Seven first. The Senator opposite commented aside and began walking and the Honourable Deputy Speaker ruled that the Senator should leave the Chamber. The Senator then left the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker continued saying that he will deal with the Member. The Honourable Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought closure to the Debate.
“This is a clear case where for the first time in our parliamentary system and democracy in Parliament that the Opposition was completely refused an opportunity to contribute to an Income Tax Bill or any Bill. I was in the Parliament at the time. Honourable Nigel Carty and myself both discussed that he would go first and I will go second.
“To my dismay when the Prime Minister rose, I’ll remember was to introduce the Bill. So, the only reason he could be rising after his Member, Honourable Wendy Phipps, would have submitted her presentation, the only thing he could be rising for is to close the Debate. And in that situation, where it is clear that we would be able to present on that Bill, the Speaker, because of whatever signals may have been transmitted his way, decided to choose the Prime Minister to wrap up a debate completely without any input from the Members of the Opposition.”
Maynard opined that some people might have wanted to compare that incident with one that occurred in the past. “But this has never happened!” he exclaimed, adding: “They want to, for instance, bring an example when the previous Member for Number Three was presenting on the Opposition Benches for 45 minutes to an hour was repeating himself over and over again and there was no one else on the Opposition to speak, and the Speaker told him: ‘If you have nothing else to add, I will ask you to sit down.’ He gave him opportunities to add new material...he did not. But in that instance the Opposition was given their chance to speak. And so when we see this as a Deputy Speaker, on his elevation to the Speaker’s chair, I commented on this and said I cannot support his elevation because he has a track record of intentionally and wilfully shutting out the Opposition.”
The young politician also pointed to another incident of similar nature.
“We recall earlier to that a sitting right after the last Budget Presentation of 2015, the first Parliament thereafter, and the Deputy Speaker took the chair after about one or two hours of the former Speaker sitting in the chair, and he allowed the Members of the Government to give statements by Ministers from 11:00 a.m. in the morning until 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon.”
“Do you know why?” he asked and followed up with this explanation: “Because the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party on that day, a Friday, had organised a march through the streets of Basseterre. And so it was clearly a deliberate attempt to ensure that on that particular day, which were also attacks there, they did not want to hear the presentations of the Members of the Opposition.”
Parliamentary Representative for Constituency Two, Hon. Marcella Liburd declared that she has very deep concerns about Speaker Perkins’ behaviour in the Parliament and referred to one of her experiences.
“From since he was the Deputy Speaker I myself had my own run-ins with the Speaker, so to speak. And during the last Budget I went to Parliament to present and the first speaker for that morning was the Honourable Eugene Hamilton. He spoke for 90 minutes, asked for an extra 30 minutes, he spoke for two hours and then I got up to present, standing on my feet.
“While I am there, Honourable Eugene Hamilton stood up again. So, being decent and knowing he had already presented, I said, ‘Well, I know he is Leader of Government Business in the House.’ So I sat just to hear what he had to say because he had already made his presentation. And he was asking to adjourn the House. So I stood up and I said: ‘Mr. Speaker I am already on my feet to make my presentation.’ He said: ‘Oh, we are going to take this motion to adjourn the House.’ And he adjourned the House.”
Liburd intimated that the Opposition MPs are constantly struggling with such rulings, more so now that Perkins is the substantive Speaker while making reference to the recently held Budget sitting.
“Even this Budget that we had just recently here, the Prime Minister Budget Day, you have people in the Gallery coming and you chose that moment, after the Prime Minister had presented, to talk about things will be different. This is something to my mind that should have been said first thing on the next day, because you are making this out to Members of the House. This is not something where you have people invited into the Gallery and you say that when no debate is going to be taking place that day.
“And again, yesterday [Dec. 8], the Honourable Konris Maynard was being interrupted by somebody in the Gallery and he got up and referred this to the Speaker. And he said: ‘All I can do is tell them to desist.’ A Speaker who has the authority to throw people out of the Parliament...Representatives don’t have any authority over the Gallery it seems.”
According to Speaker Perkins, Senator Carty had disrespected the House on a number of occasions.
“I warned yesterday that I would not be tolerating any more of that. Even today, even though I did not respond to certain things, I have made notes of things that were happening. On one particular ruling I heard the Honourable Member say that that was illegal; meaning my ruling was illegal. I have noted what I heard him say with respect to my ruling. Clearly, that too was disrespectful and I have been observing, even though quietly, a number of things that were going on in this National Assembly. I just want the record to reflect that my decision was not one in isolation, but it was in response directly to that particular incident a few minutes ago.”
One of the programme’s hosts indicated it is obvious that there is friction between the Speaker and the Labour Party’s MPs in the Parliament. He (the host) pointed out that from the Speaker’s perspective, he wants to maintain order in the House, while noting that the same might also be wanted by the Opposition.
On that premise, the host stated that the view of some of the Labour Party’s MPs is that the Speaker is biased. He however proffered the view that the situation was not good for the Parliament and asked if they would meet with the Speaker and air their concerns as well as what would be their move going forward.
In response, Dr. Douglas said: “I think this is a very important question, because we had arrived at that very point just before the former Speaker left office. In fact, I waited for the former Speaker on behalf of the Opposition Members. We said that there are certain things that are emanating from decisions and otherwise that we believed will lead to conflict and confusion. Let us have an opportunity to sit and discuss these matters, and he gave us an audience. But it was just before he left.
“We sat down and he realised, for example, that one of the rulings he had made when there is the winding up of a debate by the presenter, that we could not interrupt even if there was a clear reason for a point of order. He admitted that he had researched that and had found that he might have been a little way beyond what the Rule actually said. And in that speech he said let us set up committees so that we would have a committee to study the Rules and their practices and see how we can bring a better decorum to the Parliament. He said: ‘I have met with you, I have asked for a similar meeting on the other side and it had not yet been forthcoming.’”
The Leader of the Opposition Leader lamented that that was part of the frustration they faced.
He then brought into the spotlight what Members on the Government Benches said about the previous Administration and insinuated that they want to get even with the Labour Party administrators.
“They are saying that we conducted the affairs of the Parliament in a particular way for 20 years. They came into office saying that there was an erosion of democracy in the Parliament...people voted for them to be there. And now that they are there they are saying we did it for 20 years and we will also get even with you.”
Dr. Douglas however stress that it could not work in that way and he spoke of asking the former Speaker why his Deputy was not present at the meeting with the Opposition Members, but got no answer.
He also suggested a solution to the problem.
“We really need to have a meeting now with the present Speaker. I believe that if we have such a meeting and there is good intention on his part and there is good intention on the part of the Government, and all of us want to bring a better decorum in the House, we shall achieve.”
