Browne: Attempts to intimidate senators during debate on PM pension bill

Opposition Senator Dr Amery Browne. - File photo by Ayanna Kinsale

OPPOSITION Senator Dr Amery Browne says there are attempts to intimidate senators to vote a particular way on the Prime Minister's Pension Amendment Bill 2025, even while the Senate was debating the bill on June 30.

Browne made this comment during his contribution in that debate.

Earlier in the sitting, Senate President Wade Mark said all senators had "the inalienable right to speak and vote freely, guided by conscience and without undue influence."

Mark vowed to "act firmly to protect the privileges, rights, and immunities of this senate collectively and each senator individually."

At a news conference on June 29, UNC PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo claimed the nine independent senators were not independents because they were chosen by President Christine Kangaloo who was a former PNM government minister, MP and senator.

Meighoo claimed the independent senators could vote against the bill.

Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives Barry Padarath called for the independent senators to support the legislation.

Browne said while the Senate was debating the bill, people were using various forms of social media to persuade senators to vote for the bill.

He claimed posts on different social media platforms "appear designed to pressure and intimidate members (senators) in the course of their deliberation and contemplation on how they would vote on matters."

Browne reaffirmed the opposition's commitment to the Constitution and democracy.

"We will have no hesitation in standing in the defence of others who might be menaced or pressured."

Browne claimed there was a group of public officials resorting to social media to undertake and present their own analysis of the Senate's debate on the bill.

Browne recalled the three tied votes which happened during the Senate's deliberations on the Children's Life Fund Amendment Bill 2025 on June 23. Those ties happened when the nine independent senators and six opposition senators supported certain amendments to the bill but the 15 government senators opposed them.

Mark used his casting vote under the standing orders to break all three ties.

Browne said, "In the end, the bill carried with the support of this chamber."

During Browne's contribution, Mark overruled claims from Leader of Government Business Darrell Allahar that Browne's comments on these issues were irrelevant to debate on the bill.

Browne repeated the PNM's support for overall amendment to the prime minister's pension legislation and its concerns about the bill being retroactive from March 10.

He said he tried to find out why government regarded this date as significant to the legislation's operationality.

Browne called on government "to put the cards on the table and expand the framing of this measure."

He identified the war in Syria and a ban in British Columbia on alcohol imports from the US, as two events related to March 10.

"I did not see any trigger there."

Browne said, "I do note that seven days...exactly seven days later there was a development in the politics of Trinidad and Tobago."

He called on government say whether the bill is connected "to developments that took place on the 17th of March."

Port of Spain North/St Ann's West MP Stuart Young was sworn in a prime minister on that day. He succeeded Dr Keith Rowley who resigned as prime minister on March 16.

Browne asked if this is so, "Why go back one week?"

He also asked, "What is the logic? What is the intelligence behind this particular drafting?

In a Facebook post on June 27, Young said, "This bill specifically targets me as former prime minister. The bill’s retroactive application to March 10, 2025, is constitutionally illegal as it is 'ad hominem' (a law that targets a specific individual)."

Browne said this is an invitation "for the government to respond substantively."

After recalling the collaborative tone which Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles struck with respect to parliamentary matters at last month's ceremonial opening of Parliament, Browne said he agreed with suggestions earlier in the debate for the bill to be referred to a parliamentary joint select committee.

Browne disagreed with a view that the Senate should pass the bill just because the House did so.

He said it is has been well-established over time that the Senate and House are independent in respect of their individual operations and deliberations on matters.