TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015 shall go down in parliamentary history in Barbados as a day which will have many descriptive words to define the political action of the majority party.
It was on that day that the Prime Minister of this country, Barbados, the Honourable Freundel Stuart, QC, and former Attorney General, rose in support of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Michael Carrington, QC, who is involved in litigation not connected to the affairs of the said House.
The Prime Minister averred that there was no claim that any of the rights and privileges claimed by the Speaker had been breached (because of the litigation). In essence then, there was no case.
My question now is: Why did the majority party in the House of Assembly agree that the matter be sent to the Committee of Privileges if they, it would seem, knew or felt that there was no breach?” Was it purely political hi-jinks?
There may, indeed, be many different words used to describe the actions of the majority party in the House of Assembly in relation to this matter.
I have no more words. Have you got any?
MICHAEL RUDDER
