Herbert Sabaroche The Member for Colihaut Appellant v [1] The Speaker of The House of Assembly First Respondent [2] The Attorney-general of The Commonwealth of Dominica Second Respondent [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Dominica |
| Judge | REDHEAD J.A.,Justice of Appeal,SATROHAN SINGH,ALBERT MATTHEW,Justice of Appeal [Ag.] |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] ECSC J0525-3 |
| Date | 25 May 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Dominica) |
| Docket Number | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1997 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Albert Matthew Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1997
Mr. Anthony Astaphan for the Appellant
Mr. Anthony La Ronde, Attorney-General, for the Respondents
In 1995 the appellant was elected as a member of the House of Assembly in Dominica for the constituency of Colihaut.
On 24th February, 1997 during his contribution to an ongoing debate in the House of Assembly, the appellant said of the Honourable Minister for Communications, Works and Housing:-
"On visiting the road on Saturday 22nd February I was a little taken aback that the road had not been fixed. Mr. Speaker because people in Colihaut, people in Salisbury, people in Morne Rachette, Coulibistrie and Dublanc they confronted the Minister for Communications and Works on the same feed road. [Hon. Earl Williams had made statements to the effect that the road was repaired.] I am talking about a feeder road in Colihaut. And I wonder why Parliamentarians have to behave in public like that. The people, the farmers were asking about that feeder road and you should hear. I cannot repeat it in the House. You should hear the kind of language that the Hon. Minister used to those poor farmers. It was a big shame and not that —even in my presence —no one told me, I was there. I can call names of other persons who were there. You all must admonish him on that. It is a shame for Government Ministers to be behaving in public like that when people are asking them about their problems —feeder road problems. We must not tolerate that kind of behaviour from Ministers of Government and I do not know in what forum we must bring it up, whether it is in Parliament or some where else. There must be a code of conduct for the way the ministers and government officials behave in public and I would be happy that he would be there to hear what I am saying so that he could respond to it."
"[A side] Mr. Speaker, I will accept that because I recognise that a number of them behave the same way that the Hon. Minister behaved. I can accept that because they will mumble and grumble because that [is] the same way that they behave, and the Hon. Member for Mahaut in my presence used a word to his fellow companion, the junior minister for the Carib Reserve and he cannot deny it and this kind of behaviour has got to stop] [Aside]. He is trying to disturb me, Mr. Speaker".
On the following day, Tuesday the 25th day of February, 1997, the Honourable Minister of Communications, Works and Housing made reference in the House of Assembly to the appellant's speech and alleged that it was a matter of privilege. He complained that the appellant had used insulting and disrespectful language in relation to him and the entire incident was untrue. He then expressed an intention to move a motion against the appellant in accordance with Standing Order 44[4] and asked that the appellant apologise. A debate among the members ensued.
On Wednesday 26th February, 1997 the minister presented a motion to the House in the following terms:-
"The member for Colihaut —used offensive, insulting and disrespectful language and indulged in personalities in reference to another member of the House and the Honourable Minister for Communication Works and Housing by implication members of the government side of the House."
The motion read:
"BE IT RESOLVED that the House comes to a decision on the alleged fault and that if so proved the member be suspended for the remainder of this sitting and the next sitting of the Honourable House"
After the motion was read the Speaker permitted the minister and the appellant to speak for twenty minutes each. There was no further debate.
The Speaker then said:
"I have heard what the member has to say. I would not like to compare myself to Pilate but the point, is the matter is out of my hands. I wish to wash my hands."
The Speaker then went on to say that as judge in that matter he ought not to take sides and besides the responsibility for the decision making rests surely in the hands of the members of the House according to him. He said that he had absolutely no business in this at all. He is just there to preside and leave it to the members of the House to make their own decisions.
Finally the Speaker said:
" The fact is that I did not stop the member [I think he quoted section 44[4], because I want all members to understand this, just because ….. mean I do not know. A member makes a statement about an incident which occurred somewhere. I am in no position to say that statement is correct or not. So, the statement was not abusive, it was not offensive. As to whether it was disrespectful, I do not know because of the fact that I was not present and I was in no position to determine whether the statement was accurate or not. So that is why the rules provide when making statements members should satisfy themselves that those statements are accurate.
So I have no alternative but to put the question to the House for the House to make its own decision on the matter."
The motion was then passed. The voting was along party lines. The appellant was suspended for the remainder of the sitting of the House and the next sitting.
The next sitting of the House was on 13th March. While standing outside of the House of Assembly building the appellant was informed by a senior police officer that it was his understanding that the appellant was allowed to go to the gallery and that he was prepared to escort him there. The appellant agreed, but on arriving on the steps of the gallery, Inspector Sylvester told him he had no right to be on the gallery. The inspector however went to clarify the matter with the Speaker. On the Inspector's return he told the appellant that the Speaker had directed that he was not allowed to be in the building and that he should be escorted outside. Whereupon the appellant was removed from the building without his consent and against his will.
On 14th March, 1997 during a sitting of the House the Speaker's attention was drawn to the definition of "Sitting" as contained in Order 2[1] of the Standing Orders of the House. At approximately 8.00pm that evening the House was adjourned sine die. Just prior to the adjournment the speaker made the following announcement:
"This sitting has/is been completed and therefore Mr. Sabaroche is to remain suspended for the next sitting as well."
On 17th March, 1997 the appellant received a letter from the Speaker of the House inviting him to attend the next sitting of the House of Assembly.
On 24th March, 1997 a motion was filed in High Court of Dominica seeking a number of declarations alleging that his suspension from the House was illegal. The appellant also claimed damages for his alleged unlawful suspension from the House.
The appellant's case was substantially dismissed except that the learned trial judge held that the suspension of the appellant ended when the House adjourned on 13th March, 1997.
On page 33 of his judgment the learned judge wrote:
"There should be a declaration that the suspension of the applicant ended when the House adjourned on 13th March, 1997. Otherwise the proceedings should be dismissed. I will hear the parties on costs on a date to be arranged."
The appellant now appeals to this court. One ground of appeal with 12 sub-heads was filed on behalf of the appellant.
-
[a] challenges the decision on the ground that the decision is erroneous in point of law because the learned trial judge failed to consider and properly decide the central issues arising in this case, namely, what, if any, are the privileges of the House of Assembly in the absence of specific legislation enacting or prescribing, inter alia the privileges of the Parliament inclusive of the House of the Assembly to punish or suspend for breach of a privilege.
-
[b] the learned trial judge erred in failing to hold that the appellant was suspended for a breach of "privilege" which did not and does not exist in law, and/or in failing to hold that the words spoken by the appellant did not constitute or amount to a breach of the "privileges" of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
-
[c] ………………………
In my view these two grounds are the central theme running through the other grounds. So I shall not set them out in full.
Mr. Astaphan, learned Counsel, for the appellant in his written submissions posed these questions. The questions which arise in this appeal are, did the alleged privilege of which the appellant was accused and/or suspended and/or denied re-entry to the House of Assembly existin law and, does the court have jurisdiction to enquire into the existence and extent of the alleged privilege?
I agree entirely with Mr. Astaphan that these are the issues which fall for determination in this appeal. I deal with the first part of the question first. In order to do so it is necessary in my opinion that a careful examination of the complaint against the appellant must be addressed. The Minister for Communications and Works [the minister] complained the day after the appellant had spoken in the House of Assembly that the appellant used insulting and disrespectful language in relation to him and that the entire incident was untrue. The Minister then indicated his intention to move a motion against the appellant in accordance with Standing Order 44[4] and asked that the appellant apologise.
I now refer to the relevant standing orders:
S.O 4.4[4]
" It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting or...
To continue reading
Request your trial