The concern and anguish being expressed by the constituents of San Fernando East and the opposition PNM about the indefinite suspension of MP Patrick Manning from the House of Representatives is understandable as political parties have a tendency to demonstrate loyalty to their own. While the feelings this issue has aroused in the official opposition are predictable, Mr Manning must accept responsibility for his suspension and avoid wearing the mask of a victimised, political martyr. It does not look good on him. The most experienced parliamentarian in T&T, and perhaps the English-speaking Caribbean, Mr Manning deliberately chose to absent himself from the hearings of the Privileges Committee of the Parliament as it sought to adjudicate a complaint that he violated parliamentary principles.
The former Prime Minister appears to have based his absence from the hearings on the refusal of the committee to accommodate his attorneys cross-examining parliamentarians-something that no Westminster-derived parliament anywhere in the world has ever allowed. This self-enforced absenteeism carried over to the day on which the Parliament decided on the sanction to be imposed on Mr Manning. The actual allegations that caused the San Fernando East MP to be taken before the committee-that the cost of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's private residence amounted to $150 million-always seemed far-fetched, at best a gross exaggeration. Making easy the challenge to the credibility of Mr Manning's claims was the fact that he provided little or no evidence to support his allegations. A large-sized photograph of the property was no substitute for hard evidence.
When confronted with the Prime Minister's categorical and comprehensive denial of the allegation, Mr Manning appears to have been too proud, too far out in the deep to swim back in and apologise. But even in the face of an opportunity to go behind closed doors to bring his evidence and/or apologise, Mr Manning adopted the "wrong and strong" attitude that he would not cooperate with the proceedings unless given the opportunity to have his legal representatives present. Some may argue that the former prime minister, who served that office with honour and distinction in nearly 14 years at the helm of this country, is finding its difficult to accept being sanctioned for indiscretions by those he once held power over. Unfortunately, it is not clear that another dose of medicine will cure his hubris.
But there is another side to this matter which is of concern. According to PNM member of the Privileges Committee, Colm Imbert, the committee did not engage in a thorough and rigorous investigation of the allegations and the counters. No substantiating documents were provided to test the statements by Mr Manning and Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar. According to Mr Imbert, the decision that Mr Manning was in error was arrived at merely based on what the two individuals said in Parliament. If that is the truth, then surely the process fell short of the principles of natural justice to which this country, and this Parliament, ought to strive.
But even so, if Mr Manning had brought himself to attend the meetings and not seek to make the committee a court of law, he would certainly have been in a position to raise objections and force the Prime Minister to supply documentary evidence that the property cost a mere $4 million. But that would also have required him to produce the evidence to prove his $150 million claim. Over the decades, parliamentarians belonging to all of the parties that have held seats in the House of Representatives have on many occasions made unfounded allegations not only against each other but against private citizens with no voice in the Parliament.
They have used the privilege of being exempt from prosecution to carry out irresponsible political war games. Just for this session of the Parliament, MPs such as Anil Roberts, John Sandy and Keith Rowley have been taken and/or threatened with being dragged before the Privileges Committee for abusing the freedom of speech. MPs must realise that the immunity from libel action does not release them from the obligation to be responsible and guided always by the evidence.