PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – The main opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) on Wednesday said it had sent a letter to the Speaker of the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament after they had walked out of Parliament last Friday, after he cut short the opposition debate on the day designated for that.
Opposition legislators had termed the Speaker’s action an “abuse” of process when he allowed legislators to vote on a motion moved by Energy Minister Dr. Roodal Moonilal to end the private members’ motion.
Speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, former finance minister Colm Imbert, the longest-serving elected member of Parliament in Trinidad and Tobago, told reporters that, in his 34 years as a legislator, he thought he had seen it all.
“Today, the opposition, under the hand of the Chief Whip, dispatched a letter to the Speaker expressing our strong objection to what occurred in Parliament on Friday,” Imbert said.
He said that, as is the case with the Commonwealth, which follows the Westminster system, there are days set aside for what is called private business.
“On that day, the agenda is set by the minority in the Parliament, which is the opposition. In our Parliament, under our Standing Orders, Private Members’ Day, we set the agenda, we decide what is discussed”.
He said that, as is customary, the opposition is required to tell the government what the issue is, what motion they’re going to deal with, because there will be several motions on the Order Paper in the name of private members that could be discussed on that day.
He said the government was informed of the motion, which the Speaker also approved.
“That’s very important. That motion did not arrive on the Order Paper whimsically. It got there because the motion’s wording was reviewed and approved by the Speaker, then placed on the Order Paper.
Imbert said that the motion called on the government to deal with the high number of people placed on the unemployment line because of its policies and that it “was extremely wide-ranging and broad-based, and in fact, some of the government speakers said so.
“They said this thing is extremely broad, and the reason why they said that is that it referred to numerous socio-economic considerations, fairness in decision-making, and, in particular, the impact of the actions of the government.’ He said that as a result of the government policy, several groups were impacted.
“Vulnerable groups, at-risk communities, single mothers, female-headed households, youth, the elderly, persons with disabilities, food insecurity, school absenteeism, mental health strain, the risk of exploitation and social exclusion, reduced community engagement, heightened risk to public safety and social stability, local commerce, micro-enterprise sustainability, and prospects for inclusive growth, and the reason why we have extracted this from the motion and put it on its own as a standalone paragraph in the letter is to make the point how wide-ranging and broad-based this motion was.
“It’s affected numerous issues, numerous sectors, numerous groups in the country,” Imbert said, noting that Moonilal, after he had made his contribution to the private members’ motion, took the opportunity to speak about the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran war.
“No relevance to the motion whatsoever,” Imbert said, adding that Moonilal then informed the Parliament that he thought the motion was ”frivolous, vexatious, ill-advised wording and intent of this motion, I believe it should be defeated forthwith”.
Moonilal said that, in those circumstances and in accordance with Standing Order 52-1, “I beg to move that the question be now put.”
Imbert said that, in layperson’s terms, what that means is that he has asked the House of Representatives to vote on whether Parliament should continue with the private members.
“The question is that, you know, (6:20) the debate comes to an end. Now, look at his words. He said frivolous, vexatious, ill-advised. I made the point that the speaker reviewed and approved the wording of the motion, and put it on the order paper, or approved it to go on the Order Paper.
“But Dr. Moonilal is saying it’s frivolous, vexatious, and ill-advised. And then says, look, let’s bring this thing to an end.”
Imbert said that this was being done at a time when only four of the 13 opposition members had spoken on the motion.
“The Speaker is required, when something like this happens, and this is in the letter, he can refuse the request of the government member to end the debate prematurely, and he can refuse it on the following basis.
“It appears to him, as Speaker, that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or it appears to him that the motion is an infringement of the rights of the minority. The Speaker started, and we’ve made the point by saying that his powers are narrowly circumscribed.
“We do not agree. We are of the view that he could have refused Dr. Moonilal’s request to end the debate on both planks prematurely, as it was an abuse of the rules and an infringement of the rights of the minority. Go through the literature, and in the letter, we have put some references to learned publications about these two issues, abuse of the rules of the Parliament, and infringement of the rights of the minority.”
Imbert said that throughout the Commonwealth, manipulating the Standing Orders is considered an abuse of Parliament’s rules.
“That Standing Order is there to prevent members from filibustering, in other words, from just taking up time, talking nonsense, essentially. That Standing Order came into being to prevent people from just continuing to talk nonsense, but it cannot and should not be used to prevent opposition members from their right to speak.”
Imbert said that there’s a fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy, that the government will have its way, and the opposition will have its say.
“All the opposition can do is talk. The government has a majority. So, that was abuse of the parliamentary majority, and I mean, the literature is replete with commentary on that, and we’ve put those references in the letter.
“So, on that alone, the fact that Dr. Moonilal was manipulating Standing Order 52-1 to prevent the opposition from speaking on a matter that was clearly causing discomfort for the government.
“I mean, they didn’t want us to talk about that, that they’ve fired 20 or 30,000 people. They didn’t want us to do that. They’ve done nothing for them. They haven’t helped them,” Imbert said.
Meanwhile, the Leader of Opposition Business in the Parliament, Marvin Gonzales, said that the Speaker had also not approved a February 6, 2026 motion calling on Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to provide evidence to the police or any other law enforcement agency following her recent remarks that independent Senators had sought to bribe government when the legislation to debate the special operations bill 2025 (ZOSO) in the Senate recently.
“This was dispatched to the Parliament on February 6, 2026, and to date, as Chief Whip of the opposition…we have not had the benefit, not even of an acknowledgement from the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Parliament.
“We have to ask ourselves whether or not the prime minister and her executive are now in control of the parliament, and whether key office holders are now beholden to the prime minister, to the extent that they are now protecting the prime minister from coming to parliament and dealing with serious matters of governance,” Gonzales told reporters.
and then  on Wednesday said it had sent a letter to the Speaker of the Trinidad){kind=link}