Lead Editor-Politics
akash.samaroo@cnc3.co.tt
Speaker of the House of Assembly in St Lucia, Claudius Francis, says Senate president Wade Mark acted within the law when he used his casting vote to break a 15-15 deadlock and secure passage of the Special Operations Bill, although he acknowledged the decision departed from established parliamentary convention.
Francis weighed in on the controversy surrounding last week’s Senate vote, arguing that a distinction must be drawn between what parliamentary tradition recommends and what the rules legally permit.
The Special Operations Bill was passed in the Senate early Thursday morning with 16 votes in favour and 15 against after Mark exercised his casting vote.
All 15 Government Senators supported the legislation, while six Opposition and nine Independent Senators voted against it.
Francis said the rules governing the Senate provide the presiding officer with the authority to cast a deciding vote when the chamber is evenly divided.
“On a purely procedural level, therefore, the president was entitled to intervene when the chamber was deadlocked,” Francis said, arguing that Mark’s action could not be regarded as unlawful or beyond his authority.
However, Francis acknowledged that the controversy arises from established Westminster parliamentary convention, particularly the principles contained in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice.
He explained that under those principles, a presiding officer’s casting vote is traditionally exercised with restraint, with the Chair generally seeking to maintain the status quo, permit further debate or avoid making a substantive decision without clear majority support.
On that basis, Francis conceded that an argument could be made that Mark departed from convention by using his vote to secure passage of contentious legislation.
But he questioned whether parliamentary convention should override the express authority given to the Senate President to exercise a casting vote.
Francis argued that Erskine May, while an authoritative guide to Westminster parliamentary procedure, should not automatically be treated as binding law.
He described it largely as a compilation of established and evolving parliamentary practices across Commonwealth jurisdictions, noting that those practices can change over time.
The St Lucia Speaker questioned the purpose of giving a presiding officer a casting vote if that officer is effectively required to exercise it in only one predetermined manner.
“What is the point of a casting vote if not to utilise it in a manner aligned with his conscience and belief?” he asked.
Francis also weighed in on calls for President Christine Kangaloo to withhold assent from the Special Operations Bill, arguing that the Constitution does not give the President a personal veto over legislation duly passed by Parliament.
He pointed to Section 80 of the Constitution, which generally requires the President to act in accordance with the advice of Cabinet or a Minister acting under Cabinet’s general authority. Section 61 provides for Bills passed by Parliament to be presented to the President for assent. Parliament itself describes presidential assent as the stage which converts a Bill passed by both Houses into an Act.
Francis said there could be exceptional circumstances, including questions over whether a Bill secured a constitutionally required special majority, which could warrant clarification or legal advice before assent.
But barring such an issue, he argued that the President could not independently refuse assent simply because of disagreement with the legislation.
His comments come as former national security minister Fitzgerald Hinds has called on the PNM to mobilise supporters and petition Kangaloo to consider withholding assent from the Special Operations Bill.
Francis’ position is therefore that while Mark’s decision can be questioned against parliamentary convention, that is separate from whether he possessed the authority to cast the deciding vote, and whether that vote now provides a basis for the President to refuse assent.
“Let us, therefore, not confuse tradition with what is legally correct,” he said.
