Hugh Marshall attorney representing Independent Member of Parliament Asot Michael has given Speaker of the House of Assembly, Sir Gerald Watt, until Thursday to rescind his suspension.
In a legal letter, attorney Marshall contended that Watt acted outside of the standing orders (SO) when he asked parliamentarians to suspend Michael, the Member of Parliament for the St Peter constituency, for three sittings.
Marshall said the House of Representatives “had no power to make standing orders providing for the suspension of a member and SO 50(7) was, accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void”.
He added that “even if the House did have the power to make rules providing for the suspension of a member, it had no power to make rules providing for the suspension of a member for three or more sittings and SO 50(8) was, accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void”.
Marshall stated the suspension was imposed simply to punish Michael and it did not follow the mandatory procedural steps specified by SO 50(7).
The lawyer highlighted that Watt did not take similar action against his colleagues on the government benches when they engaged in cross talk with Michael, who was forcibly removed from the May 18 sitting for displaying what the speaker termed hooligan behaviour.
The attorney has asked that Watt confirm in writing that he will not prevent Michael from attending upcoming sitting.
“Unless we receive your written confirmation by close of business Thursday 25th May 2023, we will be compelled to commence appropriate legal proceedings to protect the rights of our Client as enshrined in the Constitution,” Marshall added.
Full Letter
Re: Suspension of Hon. Asot A. Michael from the Lower House on 18th May 2023
We confirm our representation of the Honourable Asot A. Michael, who by reason of ss 36 and 40 of the Constitutional Orders of Antigua and Barbuda (hereinafter “the Constitution”), sits in the House of Representatives as the member for the Constituency of St. Peter.
On the evening of 18th May 2023, the House, at your prompting and purporting to act pursuant to Standing Orders (SO) made under s57 of the Constitution, voted to suspend our Client for three (3) sittings. Having taken full instructions, which include a review of the audio and visual recording of the events, we are satisfied that the purported suspension of our Client was unlawful for the following reasons, namely:
the House had no power to make standing orders providing for the suspension of a member and SO 50(7) was, accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void;
even if the House did have the power to make rules providing for the suspension of a member, it had no power to make rules providing for the suspension of a member for three (3) or more sittings and SO 50(8) was, accordingly, unconstitutional, null and void;
the suspension was imposed for the improper purpose of punishing our Client and was not reasonably required for the regulation of the affairs and/or proceedings of the House; and
the suspension was not effected in accordance with the mandatory procedural steps specified by SO 50(7).
We have, therefore, advised our Client that the purported suspension was a nullity. On our Client’s behalf, we request that you confirm in writing that you will not take any steps to exclude or cause to be excluded our Client from the next, or any subsequent, sitting of the House, whenever that should occur. Unless we receive your written confirmation by close of business Thursday 25th May 2023, we will be compelled to commence appropriate legal proceedings to protect the rights of our Client as enshrined in the Constitution.
We now set out the factual and legal basis of our Client’s position.
On the evening of 18th May 2023, during the address of the Member for St. John’s City South on the amendment to the Criminal Prosecutions Service (Amendment) Bill, he made disparaging remarks about our Client cumulating in words “you are going to regret it”. At the same time, the Member for St. John’s City West chimed in with “UK crime agency” as cross talk. These words appear to be intended as a threat of criminal proceedings against our Client and indeed were reasonably taken by him as such. This all occurred after you had advised the House that cross talk would not be tolerated and any member who engaged in cross talk would be asked to leave. You said nothing to either Member for St. John’s City South or City West. Upon our Client responding, and in your wisdom, you found it fit to request him and him alone to leave the Chamber. You further requested the Sergeant at Arms to remove our Client from the House. Our Client protested at the biased manner in which you had acted. Our Client was in the process of leaving the Chamber (complying with your request) and thereby not posing any threat to the proceedings of the House when you then requested the Sergeant at Arms not to carry out your orders of removal and then proceeded to name him.
At the time of naming him, no Member responded and indeed you proceeded to suggest that our Client be suspended and that the House should suspend him for three (3) or six
At no time did any Member move a motion nor was any motion seconded. Solely at your insistence, and without a motion, a vote was held and our Client was purportedly suspended for three (3) sittings of the House.
In our view the primary purpose of SO 50 is to regulate parliamentary procedure and to ensure the orderly conduct of its proceedings. The House had no power to prescribe any form of punishment for disrespecting the Speaker, nor could it lawfully use the SO’s for that purpose.
Further, even assuming that SO 50(7) is valid, we are satisfied that the naming of our Client pursuant to that provision was not warranted in all the circumstances. Additionally, no motion for suspension was made by a member as required by SO 50 (7) and the suspension was, accordingly, vitiated by reason of this serious procedural flaw.
We therefore are satisfied that our Client has a strong basis for moving the Court for appropriate relief to protect and maintain the integrity of the Constitution which makes him a sitting member of the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Hugh C. Marshall Jnr.
MARSHALL & CO.
Attorneys-at-Law
Cc. Hon. Asot Michael
