Akash Samaroo
Former House Speaker Bridgid Annisette-George has rejected attempts to use her casting votes in Parliament in 2017 as precedent for Senate President Wade Mark’s deciding vote on the Special Operations Bill, arguing that none of her votes determined the fate of substantive legislation.
In a detailed response to the controversy, Annisette-George said there was a “critical distinction” between the circumstances in which she exercised casting votes as Speaker and Mark’s decision last Thursday to break a 15-15 Senate tie and secure passage of the contentious Bill.
“What a STRETCH to state that the precedent for the breach of the Denison Principle by the Senate President on the Special Operations Bill was set in 2017 by the then Speaker of the House!!!!” Annisette-George wrote in her response dated September 28.
Her comments directly challenge constitutional affairs expert Professor Hamid Ghany, who argued that Annisette-George’s use of casting votes in 2017 had effectively displaced the British parliamentary convention governing how a presiding officer should break a tie. Ghany contended that there has been no settled local practice since then and that Mark was entitled to cast his vote as he did.
The dispute centres on the Denison Principle, a parliamentary convention which Annisette-George said requires a presiding officer, when breaking a tie, to preserve the status quo and avoid using the casting vote to determine a substantive matter where members can be given another opportunity to decide it.
She explained that the principle does not simply require a presiding officer to vote “no” or against the Government.
Instead, she said, a casting vote can be used in favour of further discussion, while a final vote should preserve existing law or the existing position unless a majority of members votes to change it.
Annisette-George examined four casting votes she exercised in 2017, including during proceedings involving the Indictable Offences (Pre-Trial Procedure) Bill, the Bail (Access to Bail) (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Bill.
She said those votes either allowed debate or consideration to continue or dealt with the timing and continuation of parliamentary proceedings.
In one instance on March 15, 2017, when there was a 16-16 tie on whether debate on the Indictable Offences Bill should be adjourned, Annisette-George said she expressly voted in favour of the status quo.
In September that year, she also broke 17-17 ties during consideration of Senate amendments and on the adjournment of the House.
But Annisette-George maintained those votes did not enact legislation or finally determine the substantive matters before MPs.
“In none of the four instances cited by the Professor was the casting vote a determining or final vote on the substantive issue before the House of Representatives,” she said. What a stretch-The casting Vote
She said the votes instead allowed further discussion or deliberation, or dealt with the continuation and timing of proceedings.
“The four 2017 casting votes were not used to determine substantive legislative change; that is the critical distinction which the Professor’s analysis overlooks,” she argued. What a stretch-The casting Vote
That distinction has become central to the debate over Mark’s action because his casting vote came on the third reading of the Special Operations Bill.
All 15 Government senators supported the legislation, while the six Opposition and nine Independent senators voted against it. With the Senate deadlocked 15-15, Mark exercised his casting vote in favour, resulting in the Bill being passed 16-15.
The controversy has prompted competing interpretations of parliamentary convention. Former Speaker Nizam Mohammed has similarly argued that Annisette-George’s previous votes were materially different because they did not finally determine government legislation, while Ghany maintains her actions changed the local practice surrounding casting votes.
Annisette-George acknowledged that there has been a turning point in Trinidad and Tobago’s observance of the British parliamentary convention.
However, she firmly rejected Ghany’s contention that it occurred under her Speakership.
“The Professor is correct that there has occurred a turning point in the settled practice in the observance of the British Parliamentary Convention for Presiding Officers of the Denison Principle,” she concluded, “but he is ALL WRONG in identifying 2017 as the date.”
