By CLINT CHAN TACK Saturday, October 10 2009

ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie did nothing wrong when he questioned a ruling by Justice Rajendra Narine which referred to a controversial affidavit, which had been deemed “scandalous and irrelevant” by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the House of Representatives on September 14.

Speaker Barry Sinanan made this ruling yesterday as he rejected Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s request to refer Jeremie to the Privileges Committee.

The Speaker also rejected Persad-Bissessar’s call for him to recuse himself from determining whether the AG’s statement constituted a breach of privilege on the grounds that he “may have created a perception that the Speaker has predetermined the issue which is the subject of the application.”

Speaking in the House, Persad-Bissessar insisted that Jeremie breached Standing Order 36 (10) by questioning the conduct of a judicial officer without raising a substantive motion for that purpose. Recalling that Sinanan said on September 14 that the judgement but not the judge should be criticised, Persad-Bissessar urged the Speaker to recuse himself from determining whether a prima facie case had been made out against Jeremie.

Sinanan said he has read Jeremie’s statement and is satisfied “that they do not offend Standing Order 36 (10).” He added that the AG’s statement did not satisfy any of the criteria which must be established to prove that he deliberately misled the House. After reading Jeremie’s contribution and a September 30 letter from him which acknowledged that a misunderstanding may have arisen as a consequence of his statement, Sinanan declared: “ I am satisfied that the matters referred to me do not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt.”

He described Persad-Bissessar’ argument for him to recuse himself as “weak.” “To suggest that a ruling made by a Speaker on a point related to the interpretation of the Standing Orders prevents him from considering whether, prima facie, there is a case of breach of privilege or to answer, albeit related to the same statement, is to show a lack of appreciation of the duties of the Speaker and the basic rules of procedure,” Sinanan said.

Explaining there was a clear difference between a breach of order and a breach of privilege, Sinanan said: “A Speaker’s ruling on a point of procedure in relation to any Standing Order can in no way be a valid reason for him to abdicate his responsibility to determine a matter of privilege related to the same procedure.” He said if Persad-Bissessar was right, every alleged breach of the Standing Orders would warrant investigate by the Privileges Committee and the Speaker “would have to leave the Chair every week” to allow a ruling to be given. “It is for these reasons, honourable members, that I cannot accede to the request of the Honourable Member for Siparia,” he concluded.