Caption: Independent Senator Anthony Vieira. Photo: T&T Parliament
By Alicia Chamely
THE Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) is condemning the “unwarranted attacks” against the independent bench of the Senate, especially on those who choose not to support the Prime Minister’s Pension Bill.
Calling these attacks a “trend that needs to be reigned in.”
In a release on Sunday, LATT stated, “The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago notes with deep concern what appear to be unwarranted attacks on the independence and integrity of the independent bench in the Senate, during and following the recent Parliamentary debate on the bill to amend provisions governing qualification for a Prime Minister’s pension. Those attacks were directed at members of the independent bench who did not support the bill.”
Last week’s Senate debate on the Prime Minister’s Pension Bill was highly contentious, with accusations of bias being launched against the independent bench by members of the government.
Independent Senator Anthony Vieira was particularly targeted, both inside and outside of the halls of parliament.
The Saturday before the bill was set to be debated in parliament, the United National Congress (UNC) held a press conference at their Chaguanas headquarters, where UNC Public Relations Officer Dr Kirk Meighoo accused Vieira of being politically aligned with the People’s National Movement (PNM).
Before the debate started Senate President Wade Mark said that attacks against the independent bench would not be tolerated under his watch.
During his contribution last week Monday, Vieira objected to the passing of the Bill, arguing its retroactive application only affected former Prime Minister Stuart Young and could be seen as politically motivated.
He said, “The objective of this bill is to deny a certain person equal protection under the law, and that constitutes in my opinion an invidious discrimination.”
Despite earlier warnings from Mark, Government Senator Darrell Allahar voiced his beliefs that Vieira’s and fellow independent Candice Jones-Simmons’ refusal to support the bill was a result of their bias against the government.
In response to Vieira’s and Jones-Simmons’ allegations of political motivation, Allahar said, “In the absence of any evidence, of any statements coming from the Government side, of malice or some sort of government political motive, those statements show unfortunately, a predisposition against the UNC Government. And I am very, very disappointed.”
Later that evening, after the Bill was passed with the required three-fifths majority, Meighoo posted a statement on his Facebook page condemning Vieira and referring to him as a “disgrace to the Parliament and the President’s bench.”
Having taken note of these continued attacks, especially on independent senators, who chose not to support the bill, LATT questioned the rational basis as to why independent senators who supported the bill were free of “Opposition influence” but those who did not support the bill were not.
LATT explained that within a democratic society, one must expect to encounter differences of views and perspectives, and “the health of our democracy can be gauged by the manner in which such differences are navigated.”
The Association stated, “Our democracy needs strong and independent thinkers. Sadly, however, particularly where our public institutions and public figures are concerned, their independence and integrity are often called into question whenever they hold or express views or perspectives which differ from those of our politicians. This is a trend which must be reined in.”
LATT ended, “It is not in our nation’s interest, for the citizenry, many of whom are likely to have some political affiliation, to be encouraged to believe, that every time views and perspectives are expressed which differ from their own, the persons expressing them are unprincipled or are lacking in independence and integrity.”
