There should remain no doubt in the minds of observers of Parliament that Patrick Manning, the member for San Fernando East, intends to pursue his threat to challenge Parliamentary procedure to a full, legal conclusion.Having failed to successfully table a motion in April to allow legal representation in his hearing before the Privileges Committee, it seems clear that the former Prime Minister may have sought to force the issue by allowing his hearing before the committee to proceed without his input.To be specific, according to the report of the Privileges Committee on the matter, Manning either requested adjournments or simply failed to appear before ten scheduled meetings of the Committee between January 21 and May 11.In its report, the Privileges Committee described itself as exercising "tremendous patience and forbearance" with the multiple requests for adjournments before adjudicating on the matter in Manning's absence.
The issues arose when Patrick Manning made a contribution before Parliament, imputing improper motives in the construction of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's private home. After warnings by the Speaker on his presentation, Manning promised to file a substantive motion to provide evidentiary underpinnings for his claims. That motion has never been filed. Without Patrick Manning, the Committee reported that it was "limited to deliberating on the verbatim notes of Manning's contribution and the personal explanation given by the Prime Minister," and accused Manning of attempting to frustrate the Committee's efforts to proceed with its business.
After ten aborted attempts to hear Patrick Manning's clarification of his presentation, it's difficult to accuse the Privileges Committee of a rush to judgement, and it's unclear whether another ten adjournments would have resulted in Manning's presence at the hearing.The strategy suggests that Manning intends to move the matter of legal representation before the Privileges Committee to another forum for adjudication, and his apparent rejection of the process may well have provided the best way for his challenge forward under current Parliamentary laws and procedure.Patrick Manning has already made one attempt to involve a third party in the matter, requesting judicial review of the request in February, but that request was returned to Parliament for adjudication.
Manning's next course of action is to take the matter before the High Court and failing in that, he may well make good on his threat to take the matter all the way to the Privy Council. This is, undoubtedly a weighty matter, one that challenges not just established Parliamentary procedure, but the long enshrined understanding that Parliament is empowered to make laws not just to govern the nation, but also to craft its own due process and systems.
The report of the Privileges Committee on the Manning matter alone has created a storm in Parliament, with the three Opposition members sitting on the Committee-Colm Imbert, Patricia McIntosh and Donna Cox-objecting to the findings of the report and inferring, by so doing, that the report did not fully reflect their input in the deliberations.Certainly the report, signed by none of the Committee's Opposition members, might be construed as evidence of at least one of Patrick Manning's concerns before his hearing, that the Government's majority would provide some sort of impediment to the justice he sought.
The report of the Privileges Committee not only found Manning guilty of contempt of Parliament; it further suggested that his attitude to the hearings appeared to be contempt of the Committee itself.It is regrettable that Patrick Manning, a 40-year veteran of Parliament, did not separate his challenges of Parliamentary procedure in seeking legal representation before the Privileges Committee from his responsibility to answer the questions waiting to be put to him by representatives of the House.It would have been a delicate balance, but if there were anyone who might have been capable of walking the legal tightrope between defending his statements in Parliament and building a case for legal representation, it would have been the longest serving member of the House.