Will House Speaker Do the Right Thing?

Just when it seemed Saint Lucians at home and abroad had given up on our long-comatose and neglected justice system, when it seemed incumbency rendered our politicians infallible and unreachable by the advertised long arm of the law, when many of our citizens—the young majority especially—were convinced right and wrong depended solely on societal status,  pedigree, and the political altar at which a citizen worships, a recent decision by the high court has proved a restorative for our dispirited and depressed nation.

The matter of Allen Chastanet versus our singular Speaker of Saint Lucia’s House of Assembly has, among other encouragements, underscored the vital importance of having appropriately qualified personnel in positions of authority. I speak not only of their education but also of their temperament, their character, their reputation. Over the years, our current Speaker has in certain quarters been widely considered something of a legal eagle, close to Solomonic—an image aided and abetted by knowing birds of similar political feather and appetites. Their public self-serving endorsements have effectively reinforced the notion that the Speaker has a better grasp of the law than do some with years of experience in the field, judges included, never mind he has himself never attended law school. (To be fair, he has on occasion affected a reluctance to wear the unearned cape—a reluctance that brings to mind the tale of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch!)

Consider the following from a well-known professional admirer and a presumed Facebook influencer, after a registered attorney took the Speaker to task over something he said during one of his twice-weekly televised rants: “Nigel Toussaint seemed annoyed and took offence that another talk-show host on a rival station had suggested Claudius Francis be consulted in clarifying a legal matter. The suggestion came only because Claudius had dealt with a similar matter mere weeks earlier. She intimated he was not a lawyer, therefore should not be consulted on legal issues. This is not the first time I’ve heard similar comments leveled at him. Some in the legal fraternity are of the view that since he is not a lawyer he should refrain from pronouncing on legal matters . . . It is no surprise that he has led many organizations, sporting and social institutions and now House speaker. This, because of his over-all knowledge, balance and reasonableness on many issues . . .”

On another occasion, the cited bird clucked: “If there was any doubt that Allen Chastanet should not be leader of the House opposition, he confirmed his incompetence by his handling of the Privileges Committee matter. Was the Leader of the Opposition badly advised or is he just stupid? What will he do now? Will he resort to his default posture and try to lie his way out? It’s one thing to lie behind closed doors and survive. But to lie in public?” All of that in open support of the perceived oracular TV host-House speaker and Johnnie Cochran manqué.

This from another follower of the faith and would-be Marc Anthony: “His opening speech at the last sitting of the House on 11 October 2022, on the matter of the Privileges Committee, testifies to the great lengths he goes to ensure Joe Public is properly enlightened . . . Should he exercise utmost control as holder of such high office? Has he not this far upheld the honor as presiding officer of the House? To both questions, the answer is yes, every step of the way. But he has feelings. He is not a robot. Should he be immune to the daily barrage of attacks leveled at him and remain silent? My answer is a resounding no. There comes a time when one has to fight fire with fire.”

The last call to arms was in reference to the public resentment that greeted what many took to be threats of violence by the Speaker, as well as his demonstrated lack of respect for his high office, while hosting a particular episode of his TV show shortly before a scheduled meeting of the House when the Speaker clashed several times more than customary with the Leader of the Opposition. Boiled down, he said on TV that he’d had it with unfair opposition criticism of the Labour Party; had it with the pussy responses from the flock and from then onward he would be “no more Mr. Nice Guy.” He would retaliate with all the weaponry in his arsenal. In defense of his party, he fumed, he would “fight fire with fire,” regardless of whether the critics are “giants or dwarfs.” He would treat them equally with his “bazooka.” Almost immediately afterward, many had taken to referring publicly to Mr. Speaker as “Bazookaman” and “Mr. Bazooka.”

The issue of the Speaker’s contentious referral to the Committee of Privileges had its genesis in a complaint against the Leader of the Opposition—and his derisive reaction. Considering Richard Frederick’s hardly secret relationship with the U.S. authorities, the Speaker’s explanation for his absence from the day’s session, that he was on government business in New York, the resultant shock waves should’ve been anticipated. In all events, the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to unleash a below-the-belt uppercut to the absent MP’s ego. With a smile from ear to there, he expressed the hope that Frederick would enjoy his monitored three-day stay in New York, with his three-day visa, the kind afforded such as Castro and Gaddafi.  

Frederick’s complaint to the Speaker remains cloudy. Nevertheless, even before his next appearance in the House, he had informed the no-questions media of his intention to take Allen Chastanet before the Committee of Privileges. There was also the heated back and forth over matters related to the High Commission in London, between MPs Ernest Hilaire and Allen Chastanet, during which the former High Commissioner expressed his decision to follow Frederick’s lead.

Suffice it to say that in early October, upon being notified of a scheduled meeting of the Committee of Privileges that could determine his immediate political future, Allen Chastanet opted to challenge Mr. Speaker in a court of law. On October 19, 2022 Chastanet’s lawyers wrote to Mr. Speaker with reference to his referral of complaints against their client to the Committee of Privileges. At the heart of the letter was that the referrals were procedurally flawed, on several counts, including he had “no power to refer the subject matter of the yet unspecified complaints against our client to the Committee of Privileges without a motion being tabled and decided by the House.” Moreover, that the referral of the complaints to the Committee “was in breach of the Standing Orders of the House.”

Then there was the matter of procedural fairness. Several minimum requirements were listed, none of them, according to Chastanet’s lawyers, met. Also cited were a number of House of Lords decisions that centered on natural justice, impartiality of judges, opportunity to answer to complaints and so on. “Our client does not know whether the complaints relate to an alleged breach of privilege or whether it is being alleged that he is in contempt of the House. In short, our client does not know what case he is required to answer and, as a result, the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice have not been met by you.”

Additionally: “We demand that the matters addressed in this letter be rectified and that appropriate measures taken to ensure 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 regarding any matters of privilege.” The lawyers requested that the Speaker indicate in writing his intention to cancel the scheduled Committee meetings by the close of business on October 20, 2022.

The Speaker, in his personally prepared response, tackled none of the legal issues raised in the letter from Chastanet’s lawyers. Indeed, some who have seen it are of the view that the Speaker had chosen to be the fool in Abraham Lincoln’s “a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” 

As has elsewhere been chronicled, an application to the court to order the Speaker not to proceed with his scheduled Committee meeting was on October 24 granted. At a final hearing on January 26, 2023 the court announced that “by consent” the “purported referrals in or about October 2022 by the defendant to the Committee of Privileges of the complaints made by Honorable Richard Frederick and the Honorable Ernest Hilaire, respectively, against the claimant are null and void and of no effect, the defendants having no power to refer to the Committee of Privileges against any complaints made by a member of the House of Assembly against another member in respect of a matter of privilege or contempt.”

And so, we ask: Who restored, whether or not inadvertently, public trust in our justice system? Who sacrificed his ego and more so we might have reason to believe, for however long, that politicians do not control our magistrates and our judges? Also, that they are not the grand arbiters of justice some presume they are. That by no stretch of the imagination are they above the dictates of the Saint Lucia Constitution that affords them the not-unlimited authority they have while in office? Let’s hear it for Mr. Speaker—our Person of the Year 2022!