ST. JOHN’S, Antigua, CMC – Lawyers representing independent legislator, Asot Michael, have given the Speaker of the Parliament, Sir Gerald Watt KC, until Thursday to rescind the suspension notice given to their Client or face “appropriate legal proceedings” to protect the rights of the parliamentarian.
The law firm Marshall & Co said in their May 22nd letter to Sir Gerald that on May 18, he prompted the Parliament to vote to suspend Michael, a former government minister who contested the last general election as an independent and is now the parliamentary representative for St. Peter, for three sittings.
“Having taken full instructions, which include a review of the audio and visual recording of the events, we are satisfied that the purported suspension of our Client was unlawful,” the lawyers said.
They said the Parliament had no power to make standing orders (SO) providing for the suspension of a member, and SO 50(7) was “accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void.”
They argued that even if the Parliament did have the power to make rules providing for the suspension of a member, “it had no power to make rules providing for the rest of a member for three (3) or more sittings and SO 50(8) was, accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void;
“The suspension was imposed for the improper purpose of punishing our Client and was not reasonably required for the regulation of the affairs and proceedings of the House,” they wrote, adding, “The suspension was not affected by the mandatory procedural steps specified by SO 50(7).
“We have advised our Client that the purported suspension was a nullity. On our Client’s behalf, we request that you confirm in writing that you will not take any steps to exclude or cause to be excluded our Client from the next, or any subsequent, sitting of the House, whenever that should occur.
“Unless we receive your written confirmation by close of business Thursday, May 25, 2023, we will be compelled to commence appropriate legal proceedings to protect our Client’s rights as enshrined in the Constitution,” the lawyers added.
They said that on the evening of May 18, during the debate on the Criminal Prosecutions Service (Amendment) Bill, a government legislator “made disparaging remarks about our Client culminating in words “you are going to regret it,” among other statements.
“These words appeared to be intended as a threat of criminal proceedings against our Client and were reasonably taken by him as such. This all occurred after you had advised the House that cross-talk would not be tolerated and any member who engaged in cross-talk would be asked to leave.”
The lawyers said that the Speaker said nothing to two government legislators, including the one who made the offending remarks, and as their Client responded, “In your wisdom, you found it fit to request him and him alone to leave the Chamber.
“You further requested the Sergeant at Arms to remove our Client from the House. Our Client protested at the biased manner in which you had acted. Our Client was in the process of leaving the Chamber and thereby not posing any threat to the proceedings of the House when you then requested the Sergeant at Arms not to carry out your removal orders and then proceeded to name him”.
They said at the time of naming Michael, no legislator responded, and “indeed you proceeded to suggest that our Client be suspended and that the House should suspend him for three (3) or six (6) sittings.
“At no time did any Member move a motion nor was any motion seconded. Solely at your insistence and without a sign, a vote was held, and our Client was purportedly suspended for three (3) sittings of the House.
“In our view, the primary purpose of SO 50 is to regulate the parliamentary procedure and ensure its proceedings’ orderly conduct. The House had no power to prescribe any form of punishment for disrespecting the Speaker, nor could it lawfully use the SOs for that purpose,” the lawyers wrote.
“Further, even assuming that SO 50(7) is valid, we are satisfied that the naming of our Client under that provision was not warranted in all the circumstances. Additionally, no motion for suspension was made by a member as required by SO 50 (7), and the rest was, accordingly, vitiated because of this severe procedural flaw.
“We, therefore, are satisfied that our Client has a strong basis for moving the Court for appropriate relief to protect and maintain the integrity of the Constitution, which makes him a sitting member of the House of Representatives.”
Meanwhile, the main opposition United Progressive Party (UPP) says it condemns the provocation of Michael, calling his suspension “a ‘fiction.’
The party said that it also condemns the recent behavior of Prime Minister Gaston Browne and Attorney-General Steadroy “Cutie” Benjamin and “the clear bias of House Speaker Sir Gerald Watt – which led to the ejection and subsequent “suspension” of St. Peter MP Asot Michael.”.
The party said the “recent political animosity between the prime minister and the St. Peter representative is well known. However, we do not believe it should be played out in the Lower House – especially not by the Government side, whose members continue to appeal for maturity in the conduct of the People’s business.”
and then 