Humbled House Speaker: No More Mr. Nice Guy!?

How typical of the Saint Lucia House of Assembly presiding officer and full-time insurance loss adjuster, as well known for his bombast as for his mostly unsolicited hilarious law lectures, to have chosen immediately after last Monday’s much discussed court appearance to impress the press at the expense of John Bercow, the disgraced former House of Commons Speaker-turned lecturer. In 2022, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upheld the Independent Expert Panel’s conclusion that Bercow had behaved in a fashion “far below that which the public has a right to expect from any member of parliament,” that he was a serial liar who had been repeatedly dishonest in his evidence, and a serial bully to boot. The panel had heard from members of Bercow’s staff 35 charges, 21 of which—including sexual harassment—were finally upheld.    

It was determined that since Bercow, when he appeared before the IEP, was no longer a Member of Parliament and therefore could not be expelled from the House of Commons, he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary Estate. An unrepentant Bercow declared the body “a kangaroo court that was insulting even to kangaroos.” His Labour Party membership was subsequently suspended.

How any of the above was relevant to last Monday’s press conference, only the convenor knows for certain. He had himself landed before a judge after he rejected out of hand epistolary complaints by decorated legal professionals about his bush-league understanding of the role of the House Privileges Committee and related procedures. In a missive dated 19 October 2022, legal representatives of the Leader of the Opposition Allen Chastanet notified the Speaker of their client’s several concerns about his scheduled appearance before the Committee, among them that he had “never been formally notified or advised of the specifics of the charges or complaints leveled against him. Nor were those complaints specified at the time of announcing the proposed referral [to the House Privileges Committee].”

Additionally: “No motion relating to any alleged matter of privilege was tabled in the House for the referral of the complaints, and the House has never debated or decided on the question whether the as yet unspecified complaints should be referred to the Committee. Based on our research, we have advised our client that the said complaints against him have not lawfully been referred to the Committee and that, in any event, basic principles of procedural fairness, natural justice and due process have not been adhered to in connection with the impugned referrals.”

The letter cited the basis for the advice given the Leader of the Opposition. Reference was made to May (generally held to be the most authoritative reference book on parliamentary procedure) at paragraph 15.2, wherein is contained the manner in which complaints of breach of privilege or contempt are raised: “In general, the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction. In any event, as sparingly as possible. And only when satisfied that to do so was essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members or its officers, from improper obstruction, or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, a substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.”

It was pointed out to the Speaker that the referenced parliamentary authority “explains that the procedure is designed to prevent frivolous complaints of breach of privilege, and observes safeguards are in place: the Committee of Privileges does not have power to inquire at will but can only deal with complaints referred to it. Decisions as to whether to refer a matter of privilege to the Committee of Privileges are taken by the House as a whole, and members required the permission of the Speaker to raise a matter of privilege.”

Also cited for the Speaker’s consideration were paragraphs relating to “best practices.” Underscored was the following: “Privilege complaints should not be raised on the floor of the House without first writing to the Speaker. The Speaker has the discretion to decide whether or not the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. A decision by the Speaker not to allow precedence in no way limits the member’s right to use other procedures for publicizing his or her complaint—but the Speaker has ruled against such matters being raised on a point of order.”

Noted the opposition leader’s legal representative in his 19 October letter to the Speaker: “We are satisfied that the Standing Orders and parliamentary best practices required a motion relating to the matter of privilege to be tabled, debated by the House and decided—before a complaint may be referred to the Committee. As Speaker, you had no power to refer the subject matter of the as yet unspecified complaints against our client to the Committee without a motion being tabled and decided by the House. In our view the referral of the complaints to the Committee was in breach of the Standing Orders and the usual parliamentary procedures, and the question of referral has not been decided by the House . . . We are of the view that you have exceeded the powers conferred on you by the Constitution and the Standing Orders, and the purported referral is, accordingly, a nullity.” (My emphasis)

Having proffered for the Speaker’s further elucidation several paragraphs, including “the requirements for fairness” as addressed in the House of Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct, the letter expressed the opposition leader’s serious concerns about the proposed composition of the Committee . . . “as it will comprise members whose independence and impartiality in the matter cannot be assured.” Particularly concerning were Richard Frederick, Ernest Hilaire and Joachim Henry, all of them with pending lawsuits against Allen Chastanet.

“Our client is entitled to insist on his constitutionally protected right to due process and the protection of law and we have advised him the procedures being adopted are in clear violation of those rights,” the letter went on. “We demand that the matters addressed be rectified and the appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the Constitution, the Standing Orders, best parliamentary practices, and principles of fundamental fairness and natural justice are adhered to in relation to complaints against our client on the matter of privilege.”

Finally, there was this ultimatum: “We have instructed our client that unless, by the close of business on 20 October 2022, you indicate in writing your intention to cancel the Committee meeting you have scheduled in respect of the impugned referrals, we are to immediately institute proceedings in the high court for such injunctive and other reliefs as may be appropriate . . .”

The House Speaker’s 20 October 2022 response to the opposition leader’s KC was curt. Moreover, it seemed to confirm the concerns in the letter from Chastanet’s legal advisors, at the same time dismissing their references to May: “Your client’s allegations of unfairness and alleged breaches of the law are manifestly unfounded. Your client was given the opportunity to produce the evidence to back up his allegations or to withdraw his allegations. He refused and sought to produce documents in support, which did not address the core allegations which he made. A request was made by the aggrieved member for the matter of your client’s allegations to be referred to the Privileges Committee. After due consideration of the request and perusal of the documents before me, the referral was made. Further, your client received a letter dated 17 October 2022 from me in which I set out, in detail, the particulars and purpose of the hearing before the Privileges Committee with transcripts of the Hansard for the relevant proceedings of the House of Assembly.”

For once, the notoriously prolix Speaker was succinct. He copied his letter to Anthony Astaphan SC, legendary in Saint Lucia for his court defenses of all things Labour. The Speaker’s published missive left many, including this writer and more than one Bar Association heavyweight, wondering about Mr. Astaphan’s role in the matter at hand, and at whose behest.

Here now, the recorded controversial exchange on 9 August 2022 between the Leader of the Opposition, Allen Chastanet, and the MP for Castries South, Ernest Hilaire, referenced in the Speaker’s letter of 20 October 2022:

Chastanet: The member also made other references to further investigations. I have said nothing in this House but the truth, Mr. Speaker, substantiated by the Audit Department. There is a joint account opened in the UK between the High Commissioner and Ambassador Juffali.

Hilaire (on his feet): Mr. Speaker, no, no, no. At this point you are stepping out of order!

Speaker: What is, what is the Point of Order?

Hilaire: He is misleading the House. I have never had a joint account with anybody in my life. Not with my ex-wife, not with my children, nobody, and I will refer this to the Privileges Committee. He will have to present evidence to the House. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I showed mercy on Chicot. You will not get it.

Chastanet: But you already told me that.

Hilaire: I have never had a joint account with anybody in my life.

Speaker: Honorable member. All right Member for Castries South . . .

Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, I want to serve notice. I will refer this to the Privileges Committee. And I want you . . .

Speaker: Member for Micoud South [Chastanet], the Member for Castries South has said he never had a joint account with anyone, let alone another ambassador. Do you stand by your statement or are you going to withdraw it?

Chastanet: No, I stand by my statement, Mr. Speaker, because it is substantiated in an audit by the Audit Department. It is not . . .

Speaker: You have stated you will stand by your statement.

Chastanet: The fact is that monies were put into that account and were transferred to personal accounts. So, the question is: Is that the reality? Mr. Speaker, OK. If you want to open a Pandora’s Box in terms of allegations of who said what . . .

Hilaire: Provide evidence. Again, Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order. Can the honorable Member provide evidence of what he is saying? It is getting a little . . . after the beating he got he is trying to be nasty. If you are accusing, can you provide evidence? Make it a document of the House that there is a joint account and that monies were transferred to personal accounts alleging I might have been involved. Can you make it a document of the House?

Speaker: Member for Micoud South . . .  

Chastanet: I’ll be happy, Mr. Speaker, to send you the document by tomorrow. That is not a problem. OK. I’m happy to send you the documents of the account numbers, the signatures on the account, everything.

Several hours before Justice Sean Innocent convened a court hearing to consider an application for an injunction to prevent the House Speaker from carrying out his expressed determination to proceed with his scheduled Privileges Committee sitting regardless, Allen Chastanet’s lawyers received from the Speaker’s representatives, word that their client had “now received legal advice on the matter and has been advised to cancel the meetings, the motion having not passed in the House.”

Did that mean the Speaker had earlier been flying solo, challenging the truism that “a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client?” His freshly acquired legal eagle went on: “Further to that legal advice, the meetings have been cancelled and your client duly notified. My client has not offered, and will not be giving an undertaking to the court, to not hold the meetings because the meetings have already been cancelled and the referral withdrawn.”

Alas, Chastanet’s lawyers had other ideas. They successfully petitioned the court to make an order that the chairman of the Privileges Committee, that is to say, Mr. Speaker, be restrained from conducting any business of the Committee as it pertains to the referral made on 11 October 2022 in respect of Richard Frederick and Ernest Hilaire, until the determination of their filed claim for relief under the Constitution or further order of the court. A hearing of their substantive claim has been set for early December.

No surprise who had the last word. In a move that many described as a kick in the gonads of parliamentary protocol, the Speaker, instead of first reporting to the House on the day’s outcome as many expected, convened a press conference. Flanked by two female staff members of parliament and a remarkably pulchritudinous young lawyer who might just as well not have been there, for all the attention paid her by attendant press personnel—including at least one frontline protector of the July 26 victory—Mr. Speaker referred time after time to the Leader of the Opposition as “the loo”—defined by Oxford, Collins and Cambridge dictionaries as British slang for “toilet.” More than once he seemed to be offering his own suitably embellished version of what had transpired in court. Perhaps inadvertently, while answering reporters’ questions he let drop that he’d had private discussions with Cabinet members on the day’s events, talks that might have been more appropriately conducted before the full House—especially considering his televised recent promise to take on all critics of the Labour Party, dwarfs, giants and all.

“No more Mr. Nice Guy,” he had threatened. “The gloves are off. I’m coming with my bazooka, ready to fight fire with fire and with every other weapon at my disposal.” Even Bercow would have thought twice about delivering such a call to arms mere hours before a highly anticipated, precedent-setting House session. But more on that later. Meanwhile, a House meeting scheduled for Tuesday has for undisclosed reasons been postponed. Who knows if Mr. Speaker, bogged down as he is in controversy, will recuse himself from next week’s session? Not many citizens are holding their breath!