It was former British prime minister, Harold Wilson who stated that a week in politics is a long time. Between two Fridays ago and the time of writing this column, there have emerged two completely different situations in the national politics that are completely unrelated to each other.
There is a controversy involving the Speaker which is completely disconnected from the Government as it involves the Speaker's personal interpretation of information that was passed to him by Finance Minister Larry Howai in respect of a court matter that he had commenced on Christmas Eve and followed through on January 16.
The manner in which the Speaker had interpreted that information was the subject of a major controversy involving the Office of the Speaker at the time of writing. Which way that will go will be determined after this column is submitted.
The controversy itself does not involve the Government as the performance of duty by the Speaker falls directly to the person holding the office. While Minister Howai did the correct thing to inform the Speaker of the legal proceedings, the interpretation of those proceedings in relation to the motion that was before the House two Fridays ago is controversial. The Speaker allowed the debate on the motion to proceed, but he had imposed certain restrictions on those who were going to speak in the debate. That was the subject of a fair amount of preliminary discussion between some MPs and the Speaker.
All sides of the House indicated that they were prepared for the debate, including the Government whose spokesman, Dr Roodal Moonilal indicated that they were "overprepared" for the debate and that the Opposition "should bring it on." This was clearly a cue to a major showdown in the House on this issue.
The fact that the debate started by Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner collapsed so quickly had to do with the Speaker's ruling that what was being presented to the House by the mover of the motion was not relevant to the recital of the motion. The latter involved the Carlton Savannah Hotel, while what was being presented related to Cemex and Trinidad Cement Ltd in 2002. It was on the basis of this reality that Speaker Mark told MP Warner that he was going down "a wrong road."
At that point, MP Warner decided not to proceed any further and the Speaker's request for a seconder to the motion did not yield anyone. What has happened since is that the Judiciary has cleared itself of sending any communication to the Speaker in respect of this matter.
This forced Speaker Mark to issue an apology to the Judiciary and to indicate that his statement was based on his personal "inadvertence" in the matter.
The combined opposition forces of the PNM and the ILP have latched on to the use of the word "inadvertence" to challenge the Speaker about his handling of this matter and they are now seeking action to have the Speaker removed from office.
If they should proceed in seeking to have a resolution for his removal sent forward, the Government MPs will have a decision to make as to whether they support the resolution or not.
There have been two previous resolutions attempting to remove a Speaker from office. One involved former speaker, Occah Seapaul right after the then Parliament passed a hurriedly drafted amendment to the Constitution in 1995. The second involved an attempt to remove Speaker Rupert Griffith in October 2001. Neither resolution was able to proceed as a general election was called right after, which meant that Parliament had been dissolved.
The outcome of this matter involving the Speaker would have had its first response from the Speaker last Friday after this column was written.
The other matter that arose during this week of heightened political activity involved Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and the allegations that he attempted to get the new Director of the Police Complaints Authority, David West, to hold back his witness statement in litigation involving Ramlogan and Dr Keith Rowley. That matter is now the subject of a police investigation.
It has opened the door to two officials of the State being placed at loggerheads against each other. This may be unprecedented, however the Prime Minister has indicated that she must allow the principles of natural justice to be upheld by speaking to the Attorney General before taking any action.
There is also a second government minister involved in this matter and the Prime Minister has indicated that she needs to speak with that minister as well.
The upshot of all of this is that Parliament will stand dissolved on June 17, this year if not sooner dissolved.
The Prime Minister will have some decisions to make if things go badly for the Attorney General. She may decide to await the outcome of the police investigation based on the complaint by David West before taking any further action. David West may also have to consider his position pending the ongoing police investigation seeing that his office investigates allegations of police wrongdoing. We await the outcomes.