JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

The Speaker’s Ruling on Section 36

by

1378 days ago
20211021
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bridgid Annisette-George MP. (Image courtesy Parliament Secretariat)

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bridgid Annisette-George MP. (Image courtesy Parliament Secretariat)

The fol­low­ing is the rul­ing by the Speak­er of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, Bridgid An­nisette-George MP, on Sec­tion 36 of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

RUL­ING OF THE SPEAK­ER OF THE HOUSE ON SEC­TION 36 OF THE CON­STI­TU­TION

1. Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers, it was not my in­ten­tion to ad­dress you at the be­gin­ning of to­day’s pro­ceed­ings. How­ev­er, I am in re­ceipt of cor­re­spon­dence un­der the hand of the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion and Mem­ber for Siparia, the Hon. Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, SC, MP, rais­ing sev­er­al is­sues which I am com­pelled to ad­dress.

2. It is my hope that by ad­dress­ing Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers col­lec­tive­ly, any and all mis­ap­pre­hen­sions, mis­con­cep­tions and mis­con­struc­tions will be dis­pelled.

3. The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion has raised, by my as­sess­ment, three mat­ters; first­ly, whether a de­bate en­sues when a mo­tion pur­suant to sec­tion 36 of the Con­sti­tu­tion is pro­posed, and if so, at what stage? and by which body? sec­ond­ly, an as­ser­tion that guide­lines is­sued by the Speak­er, in re­la­tion to these pro­ceed­ings, are ul­tra vires the Con­sti­tu­tion and third­ly, ac­cu­sa­tions of bias lev­elled against this Chair and a Mem­ber of the oth­er place.

4. By now, we are all fa­mil­iar with the pro­vi­sions of sec­tion 36 of the Con­sti­tu­tion. It is, af­ter all, the rea­son we are as­sem­bled. How­ev­er, I shall take this op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­mind Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers of its pro­vi­sions:

36. (1) The Pres­i­dent shall be re­moved from of­fice where—

(a) a mo­tion that his re­moval from of­fice should be in­ves­ti­gat­ed by a tri­bunal is pro­posed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives;

(b) the mo­tion states with full par­tic­u­lars the grounds on which his re­moval from of­fice is pro­posed, and is signed by not less than one-third of the to­tal mem­ber­ship of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives;

(c) the mo­tion is adopt­ed by the vote of not less than two-thirds of the to­tal mem­ber­ship of the Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives as­sem­bled to­geth­er;

(d) a tri­bunal con­sist­ing of the Chief Jus­tice and four oth­er Judges ap­point­ed by him, be­ing as far as prac­ti­ca­ble the most se­nior Judges, in­ves­ti­gate the com­plaint and re­port on the facts to the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives;

(e) the Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives as­sem­bled to­geth­er on the sum­mons of the Speak­er con­sid­er the re­port and by res­o­lu­tion sup­port­ed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the to­tal mem­ber­ship of the Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives as­sem­bled to­geth­er de­clare that he shall be re­moved from of­fice.”

5. I shall now treat with the three mat­ters re­ferred to ear­li­er, in turn:

Whether a de­bate en­sues when a mo­tion pur­suant to sec­tion 36 of the Con­sti­tu­tion is pro­posed and if so, at what stage, and by which body.

6. A mo­tion is de­fined as a pro­pos­al brought be­fore the House for a de­ci­sion. In gen­er­al, mo­tions are in­deed de­bat­able and can be amend­ed. How­ev­er, there are sev­er­al ex­cep­tions and I am cer­tain that the more sea­soned Par­lia­men­tar­i­ans, in­clud­ing the Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion, are fa­mil­iar with them.

7. By way of ex­am­ple, a priv­i­lege mo­tion does not trig­ger a de­bate. It is a pro­pos­al that an in­ves­ti­ga­tion is war­rant­ed. It is pure­ly pro­ce­dur­al. A priv­i­lege mo­tion is nev­er de­bat­ed be­cause it is an orig­i­nat­ing pro­ce­dur­al mo­tion, it is sim­ply a com­plaint ac­com­pa­nied by grounds up­on which the com­plaint is based. If in the opin­ion of the Speak­er the grounds have es­tab­lished a pri­ma fa­cie case, then the priv­i­lege mo­tion is, with­out more, re­ferred to the rel­e­vant Com­mit­tee for in­ves­ti­ga­tion and re­port. It is on­ly sub­se­quent to the re­port of the in­ves­ti­gat­ing Com­mit­tee to the House that a de­bate takes place on the Com­mit­tee’s find­ings and rec­om­men­da­tions.

8. There­fore, it is well-es­tab­lished par­lia­men­tary prac­tice and pro­ce­dure that the term “mo­tion” does not al­ways mean that a de­bate is au­to­mat­i­cal­ly ini­ti­at­ed.

9. The de­ter­mi­na­tion of whether or not a mo­tion pro­posed un­der sec­tion 36(1)(a) is de­bat­able can eas­i­ly be gleaned up­on a care­ful ex­am­i­na­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion. We all know that the first rule of statu­to­ry in­ter­pre­ta­tion is the lit­er­al ap­proach and the lan­guage used by the framers is very in­struc­tive.

10. It is clear, based on the lan­guage used in sec­tion 36, that this process has four dis­tinct pro­ce­dur­al steps: one, the signed mo­tion is pro­posed, two, the mo­tion must then be adopt­ed, three, a tri­bunal will in­ves­ti­gate and four, the re­port of this tri­bunal is con­sid­ered.

11. Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers, I have been ad­vised, and it is al­so my con­sid­ered view, that the very first stage of this process, that is, the pro­pos­al of the mo­tion, is pure­ly orig­i­nat­ing and pro­ce­dur­al. The mo­tion with,

a. full par­tic­u­lars; and

b. the re­quired sig­na­tures ap­pend­ed,

is pro­posed to the House. This is done by the pro­pos­er read­ing the mo­tion in­to the records of the House, sim­i­lar to the read­ing of a priv­i­lege mo­tion.

12. At this stage, the Con­sti­tu­tion does not pro­vide, ex­press­ly or by im­pli­ca­tion, for a de­bate.

13. There­after, the mo­tion pro­gress­es through the oth­er three stages. The process as set out in the Con­sti­tu­tion is pel­lu­cid. The next stage is the vote to adopt the mo­tion as pro­posed in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. This con­veys the un­equiv­o­cal in­ten­tion of the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

14. To seek to com­pare this mo­tion with a stand­ing or­der 41 mo­tion is mis­guid­ed. A stand­ing or­der 41 mo­tion, which ini­ti­ates a de­bate, is de­cid­ed by a ma­jor­i­ty vote in the House. The pro­ce­dur­al mo­tion in sec­tion 36 of the Con­sti­tu­tion re­quires on­ly the sig­na­tures of at least one-third of the mem­ber­ship of the House to ad­vance to the next stage.

15. Sure­ly, the Hon. Leader of the Op­po­si­tion is not sug­gest­ing that the Speak­er of the House in­sert words in­to the Con­sti­tu­tion that are not there.

16. The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion’s let­ter al­so seems to sug­gest that the de­bate she de­sires should take place in the Elec­toral Col­lege. In­deed, the Mem­ber as­sert­ed that “it is ab­surd to ask the Mem­bers of the House and Sen­ate to vote on such an im­por­tant mo­tion with­out a de­bate.”

17. How­ev­er, it is strik­ing­ly odd that the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion would re­fer to a clear pro­vi­sion of the Con­sti­tu­tion as “ab­surd”. All of us as­sem­bled here swore an Oath to up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion, the very Con­sti­tu­tion that the Mem­ber is now la­bel­ing as ab­surd be­cause it is at vari­ance with her mis­guid­ed opin­ion.

18. The Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion is cer­tain­ly free to hold such a view, but this po­si­tion is con­trary to the pro­vi­sions of the Con­sti­tu­tion.

 

●  Sec­tion 36 (1)(c) does not con­tem­plate a de­bate by the Elec­toral Col­lege at this stage.

19. Sec­tion 36(1)(b) iden­ti­fies the mo­tion as a doc­u­ment con­tain­ing the full par­tic­u­lars and the grounds on which the com­plaint is based to­geth­er with the req­ui­site sig­na­tures. It was for the Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion to en­sure that her doc­u­ment con­tained suf­fi­cient de­tails, that is to say full par­tic­u­lars, to as­sist the Elec­toral Col­lege in de­ter­min­ing whether her com­plaint war­rants an in­ves­ti­ga­tion by a tri­bunal.

20. In­ter­est­ing­ly, Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers, the Con­sti­tu­tion pro­vides that up­on re­ceipt of the re­port of the tri­bunal head­ed by the Chief Jus­tice, the Elec­toral Col­lege, on the sum­mons of the Speak­er, con­sid­ers the re­port. Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers are asked to note the clear dis­tinc­tion in the word­ing of sec­tion 36(1)(e) of the Con­sti­tu­tion. It is at this stage that the Con­sti­tu­tion pro­vides for a de­bate to take place by the Elec­toral Col­lege.

21. Ad­mit­ted­ly, a mo­tion to trig­ger the re­moval of a Pres­i­dent is rarely in­voked. In fact, the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion in­tend­ed that when the pro­vi­sion is in­voked, the com­plaint and the par­tic­u­lars must be suf­fi­cient­ly so suf­fi­cient­ly weighty that it would be like­ly to suc­ceed.

22. This is ev­i­dent from para­graph 162 and 163 of the Wood­ing Com­mis­sion. Para­graph 162 states as fol­lows:

“We thought it nec­es­sary to make pro­vi­sion for re­mov­ing the Pres­i­dent from of­fice al­though it is ex­pect­ed that this even­tu­al­i­ty will nev­er arise.

It con­tin­ues at para­graph 163:

“The rec­om­mend­ed pro­ce­dure for his re­moval as set out in the at­tached draft con­sti­tu­tion is de­signed ba­si­cal­ly to make it un­like­ly that the pro­ce­dure will be set in mo­tion un­less there is near cer­tain­ty of the like­li­hood of its suc­ceed­ing.”

 

●  Guide­lines is­sued in re­la­tion to these pro­ceed­ings are ul­tra vires

23. I trust that all Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers now ap­pre­ci­ate that as Speak­er of the House, I am heav­i­ly guid­ed by the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Re­pub­lic of Trinidad and To­ba­go for the pur­pos­es of this pro­ce­dure.

24. It is the Con­sti­tu­tion it­self that au­tho­ris­es the mak­ing of guide­lines by the per­son who sits in this Chair. In this re­gard, Mem­bers are di­rect­ed to reg­u­la­tions 3 and 23 of the Elec­toral Col­lege Reg­u­la­tions, which are made pur­suant to sec­tion 28(4) of the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Re­pub­lic of Trinidad and To­ba­go.

25. I as­sure Mem­bers that, in this mat­ter, quite ex­ten­sive and sub­stan­tial re­search has been un­der­tak­en by the very ex­perts who have com­pe­tent­ly guid­ed the Chair long be­fore I be­came its oc­cu­pant. These ex­perts are in fact the prin­ci­pal ad­vis­ers on prac­tice and pro­ce­dure in this part of the Com­mon­wealth.

26. Their re­search was quite help­ful to me and they di­rect­ed me to the Con­sti­tu­tions of Nige­ria, Kenya and sev­er­al oth­er Com­mon­wealth ju­ris­dic­tions which uti­lize sim­i­lar con­sti­tu­tion­al lan­guage in re­la­tion to pro­vi­sions for the re­moval of a Pres­i­dent. This re­search, along with the pro­vi­sions of our Re­pub­li­can Con­sti­tu­tion formed the ba­sis of the Guide­lines for to­day’s pro­ceed­ings.

 

●  Ac­cu­sa­tions of bias

27. Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers, I must ex­press that I am as­tound­ed by the claims of bias made by the Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion and even fur­ther per­plexed by the fac­tors sub­mit­ted in sup­port of same.

28. I am of the opin­ion that these is­sues do not arise.

29. It is ab­surd to sug­gest that any or every per­son who has par­tic­i­pat­ed in process­es that are not the spe­cif­ic sub­ject of this mo­tion should be dis­qual­i­fied from par­tic­i­pat­ing in these pro­ceed­ings.

30. Many Ho­n­ourable Mem­bers here have sat in Cab­i­net, have held or cur­rent­ly hold Min­is­te­r­i­al port­fo­lios, have par­tic­i­pat­ed in de­bates, have asked ques­tions and filed mo­tions on is­sues which may be per­ceived as re­lat­ed (al­though ir­rel­e­vant) to this mat­ter.

31. The claim of the Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion, tak­en to its log­i­cal con­clu­sion, would sug­gest, that even the pro­pos­er and the Mem­bers who signed in sup­port may be per­ceived as bi­ased and should be dis­al­lowed from par­tic­i­pat­ing as well. NO right think­ing per­son will see the re­motest con­nec­tion be­tween that 2009 Or­der and the sub­ject mat­ter of the Mo­tion at hand.

32. The as­ser­tion is ab­solute­ly il­log­i­cal and I re­ject it out­right.

33. I am oblig­ed to re­sist the urg­ings of the Ho­n­ourable Leader of the Op­po­si­tion that I seek to in­flu­ence or ad­vise or con­vince any Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment to re­frain from par­tic­i­pat­ing in this process, as to do so would be a trav­es­ty of the very de­mo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples which the Mem­ber pur­ports to ad­vance.

34. To ac­qui­esce to any of the over­tures con­tained in the let­ter penned by the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion, would, in my re­spect­ful opin­ion, amount to an af­front to the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Re­pub­lic of Trinidad and To­ba­go.

35. I can­not, and I will not as­sume up­on my­self, the pow­er to con­strue the words of the Con­sti­tu­tion in a way which is in­con­sis­tent with its clear in­ten­tion, sim­ply to ap­pease the com­pet­ing in­ter­ests of those in­volved.

Bridgid An­nisette-George, MP

Speak­er of the House

I so rule.

Oc­to­ber 21, 2021

OppositionParliament


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored

Today's
Guardian

Publications

Father Anthony Abraham, centre, alongside Jesus Explosion coordinator Lesley Taylor-Gouveia, left, Kerry Ragoobarsingh and Father Ian Taylor, right, pray over the congregation during Jesus Explosion 23 at the Cheryl F Greaves Auditorium, Bishop Anstey High School East, Trincity, on July 19.

Father Anthony Abraham, centre, alongside Jesus Explosion coordinator Lesley Taylor-Gouveia, left, Kerry Ragoobarsingh and Father Ian Taylor, right, pray over the congregation during Jesus Explosion 23 at the Cheryl F Greaves Auditorium, Bishop Anstey High School East, Trincity, on July 19.

Father Anthony Abraham, centre, alongside Jesus Explosion coordinator Lesley Taylor-Gouveia, left, Kerry Ragoobarsingh and Father Ian Taylor, right, pray over the congregation during Jesus Explosion 23 at the Cheryl F Greaves Auditorium, Bishop Anstey High School East, Trincity, on July 19.

Father Anthony Abraham, centre, alongside Jesus Explosion coordinator Lesley Taylor-Gouveia, left, Kerry Ragoobarsingh and Father Ian Taylor, right, pray over the congregation during Jesus Explosion 23 at the Cheryl F Greaves Auditorium, Bishop Anstey High School East, Trincity, on July 19.

Jesus Explosion 23: Visiting priest feeds RC faithful

Yesterday
Minister of Rural Development and Local Government Khadijah Ameen, right, presents Israel Khan, SC, with the Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League Street Recognition Award while Rajah congratulates him during a ceremony at the St Augustine South Recreation Ground two Sundays ago.

Minister of Rural Development and Local Government Khadijah Ameen, right, presents Israel Khan, SC, with the Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League Street Recognition Award while Rajah congratulates him during a ceremony at the St Augustine South Recreation Ground two Sundays ago.

Courtesy Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League

Minister of Rural Development and Local Government Khadijah Ameen, right, presents Israel Khan, SC, with the Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League Street Recognition Award while Rajah congratulates him during a ceremony at the St Augustine South Recreation Ground two Sundays ago.

Minister of Rural Development and Local Government Khadijah Ameen, right, presents Israel Khan, SC, with the Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League Street Recognition Award while Rajah congratulates him during a ceremony at the St Augustine South Recreation Ground two Sundays ago.

Courtesy Aneal Rajah Windball Cricket League

Israel Khan honoured by community cricket league

Yesterday
SSCasa chairman Eudaine Garcia meets Guyana President Irfaan Ali

SSCasa chairman Eudaine Garcia meets Guyana President Irfaan Ali

SSCasa chairman Eudaine Garcia meets Guyana President Irfaan Ali

SSCasa chairman Eudaine Garcia meets Guyana President Irfaan Ali

SSCasa steps up Caricom collaboration after summit

2 days ago
Then acting Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs Barry Padarath, right, toasts with Argentina Ambassador Gustavo Martinez Pandiani during the Argentine National Day function at the Renassaince Club Room, The Renaissance at Shorelands, on July 9.

Then acting Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs Barry Padarath, right, toasts with Argentina Ambassador Gustavo Martinez Pandiani during the Argentine National Day function at the Renassaince Club Room, The Renaissance at Shorelands, on July 9.

ANISTO ALVES

Then acting Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs Barry Padarath, right, toasts with Argentina Ambassador Gustavo Martinez Pandiani during the Argentine National Day function at the Renassaince Club Room, The Renaissance at Shorelands, on July 9.

Then acting Minister of Foreign and Caricom Affairs Barry Padarath, right, toasts with Argentina Ambassador Gustavo Martinez Pandiani during the Argentine National Day function at the Renassaince Club Room, The Renaissance at Shorelands, on July 9.

ANISTO ALVES

Argentina wants to export world-famous beef to T&T

2 days ago