Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley yesterday said he refused to co-operate with the Privileges Committee investigating allegations of misconduct against him in the Section 34 e-mails matter because Government members he objected to refused to recuse themselves from the proceedings. The members he referred to were Dr Roodal Moonilal, Dr Tim Gopeesingh and Chandresh Sharma.
Speaking at a press conference at the International Waterfront Complex, Port-of-Spain, moments after he escaped any sanction because the committee could not complete what he called an “inaccurate report,” (See Page A3) Rowley said former members of the House sitting on such committees had recused themselves once they recognised there was conflict of interest.
However, he said on that occasion the members he raised issue with refused to do so although it was clear they had shown bias against him while participating in the vote of no confidence debate that eventually led to him being sent before the Privileges Committee. He said when he appeared before the committee, it became clear the Government members would not give him a fair opportunity to properly defend himself.
“They would not tell me specifically which aspect of my three-hour presentation was offensive to the House. “They would not give me those specifics. They would not recuse themselves...,” he added. Rowley said in Australia such a proceeding was called a “Kangaroo Court”. He said he had been ready to go to another place, “where the Constitution was made to be observed,” to get a proper hearing, adding the Government had produced a report which “falls far short of the truth.”
“Accusing me of preventing the committee from functioning is laughable,” he added. His legal adviser, Faris Al-Rawi, said there were procedural issues and substantive issues with respect to the matter, leading to the question of whether Rowley was given a fair hearing.
“Were adequate particulars of what he was guilty of given to him and was the committee itself properly constituted in terms of bias or apparent bias?” Al-Rawi asked. He said a tenet of the country’s law provided that allegations be presented to accused persons. He said sitting members on the committee were found, based on the Hansard records, to have come to conclusions of guilt against Rowley before the motion of privilege was moved.
He said those points were given for the committee’s consideration and the committee was directed to the law which stated that a committee, in considering a circumstance, must be devoid of bias as well as apparent bias. Al-Rawi said Rowley was “very specific in his response,” indicating his willingness to assist the committee. The report, however, said Rowley “informed the committee he was not prepared to answer any further questions from the members of the committee on statements made to him by the House.”
“Well that’s in fact not true,” Al-Rawi said of that aspect of the report. He said the report also left out the rest of Rowley’s statements, which said he would be prepared to answer every position put to him provided that the particulars were given to him and that the issue of the bias of the members was dealt with. Colm Imbert, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition members on the Privileges Committee, said that was the main reason the report was incomplete and they could go no further.
“In other words, this matter is now dead,” Imbert said. Imbert said Pt Fortin MP Paula Gopee-Scoon, Laventille/East MP Donna Cox and himself also did not sign the report. Imbert said although they agreed with the essence of the report’s conclusion, the PNM members were uncomfortable with the way it treated with Rowley’s approach to giving evidence and co-operating with the committee.
Imbert said the police investigation on the matter should have been completed before “a committee of this nature looks into a matter like this.” He said the committee was in no position to do any investigations into the validity of the e-mails. He said all the people mentioned in the e-mail documents should also have appeared as witnesses before the committee and that request was not entertained.