With the speaker being in the headlines recently in connection with the biscuit saga, Weekly speaks to Razack Peeroo, who was speaker from July 2012 until December 2014, for his take on the matter.  He also shares with us his opinion on turncoats, his family’s political leanings and the current state of the Labour Party.

The speaker is very much in the news these days and there is a motion of no confidence against her tabled by MP Shakeel Mohamed. As a past speaker, what is your take on the debate going on about this?

Well, in a parliamentary democracy, any parliamentarian who genuinely and sincerely feels that the speaker is not performing his/her role in a fair, independent and impartial manner, can evoke the standing orders and table a motion of no confidence. But before doing that, one has to be sure that this motion has enough arguments to support itself in the assembly.

Is it the arguments that will support the motion, or the MPs who are in the opposition?

A very good question! If one sincerely feels that the speaker has to be brought to order and he has enough reasons to substantiate his motion, it should not be a question of whether you are a majority MP or in the opposition. At any rate, the point of the motion is to make a point in the assembly and show that the speaker has not been fair, has not been reasonable or has been oppressive and partial and has not been acting judiciously and in the best interest of justice and equity. The speaker’s authority is something that is fundamental, and in the exercise of that authority, you must make sure that, by your conduct, your behaviour and your judgment, this authority is not undermined. If the speaker behaves more as a member of a particular party rather than being above party politics, s/he takes the risk that the her/his authority is undermined and s/he no longer commands respect.

Mohamed puts a few points forward. First, he talks about the speaker having attended a party function at the end of the year and she had herself admitted that it was a family dinner. Then, he also talks about the fact that she doesn’t treat all MPs in the same manner, that is, she hasn’t been able to be impartial in her treatment of MPs and he talks also about the latest scandal of the biscuits. Do you think these are grounds to file a motion?

I have to answer your question with a note of caution. Whatever you are saying is, to me, hearsay.

Let me break down the points made in the motion. The first objection that Mohamed raises is that the speaker openly attended a dinner organised by the government. She was seen and photographed there and she didn’t deny it. What do you think of that?

When I was speaker, I never attended any political gathering, any political party function or the annual dinner of the Labour Party or anything like that. Never!

What about other speakers?

I can’t speak for the others. When a function is organised by a particular political party and you attend, it compromises your role as speaker. Because you should not only be impartial but be seen to be impartial. You are in the position of a judge. This is very important. You are in the position of an arbitrator. You should stick to that.

So this means that there are grounds for Mohamed to table such a motion?

I have not verified the arguments put forward by Shakeel Mohamed but if we assume that what he said is correct, then there is ground for a motion.

The other argument, according to Mohamed, is that the speaker does not treat all MPs equally. When government MPs use unparliamentary language, she doesn’t hear it while, for unparliamentary language coming from the opposition side, her hearing is very sharp.

If what you are telling me is true, then these are valid grounds against the speaker.

Obviously, we know that this motion will not go anywhere. Is it still a good idea to table it?

Yes but that doesn’t matter. I, myself, tabled a motion against the then speaker, Iswardeo Seetaram, in 1993 when there were five of us in the opposition. There were circumstances that showed clearly that the speaker wasn’t playing the role of a speaker and was totally in the hands of a political party, out to harm Navin Ramgoolam as the leader of the opposition. That case even went to the Supreme Court where the chief justice used the now very popular expression, ‘a colourable device’. When you table a motion, whether it carries or not, at least you have voiced your arguments and said what you had to say.

The motion also mentions the biscuit saga because the address where the biscuits are delivered to Sheila Hanoomanjee is that of the speaker. Now we know that the speaker, you will correct me if I'm wrong, receives a residence allowance, is she then allowed to use her home as a commercial address?

As a lawyer, I am going to give you a legal interpretation. This allowance is given to you for your residence to stay there with your family. It is not meant for commerce, business or anything else. If I were a speaker in this kind of situation, I would have called the chief financial officer, disclosed to him that my residence is a combined residence and an office for business purposes and got advice and went according to the advice.

What do you think the advice would have been?

According to me, it would have been 'No Sir, your residence is meant for living there and not for a combined residence and business premise.’

Are you saying the act of using the address for commercial purposes is not only unethical but also illegal?

It is unethical and improper.

Is it illegal?

We’ve never had such a situation before. So I would not be tempted to say it is illegal.

When the motion is debated in parliament, will there also be debates about the biscuits or is this a personal issue which has nothing to do with the speaker?

It's not a personal issue. You receive money from public funds. So it cannot be a personal issue. We have to be clear about this.

Raj Dayal has just been formally charged by the director of public prosecutions (DPP). What does that mean for his career?

That is a very delicate question to answer, because once the case has been lodged in court it is sub judice, so it would be unethical on my part to comment on that.

What do you make of the political situation today? We know you were with the Labour party before, then the Labour party lost and you distanced yourself from it. Where are you today?

No, I haven’t distanced myself from the Labour Party. I am still a member but I am not in active politics as I was before. You know, I come from a school of politicians of people like Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Sir Harold Walter, Sir Gaetan Duval and Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed. When I look at the situation today, I am lost.

How do you feel about the culture of turncoats?

When I was attorney general, I was preparing to bring a bill to government to ban transfugisme.

Why didn’t you present the bill?

We were working on it but we did not have time to bring it to get government’s approval. Then in 2000, we lost the election.

You came back in 2005 and we never saw bill.

Yes but I was not…

Your party came back.

The party came back but up to this day, we have not seen that bill.

Your son was campaigning for the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM) during the municipal elections, is that not transfugisme?

No, he was not campaigning for any party. I am not defending him but he has his own mind; he is free and he was saying what his feeling was.

His feeling was that we should vote for the Alliance Lepep in the municipal elections.

Yes, he was not happy with things as they were. You know, I belong to a very liberal family.

Everybody does what they like?

Exactly. My son is more or less Parti Mauricien Social Démocrate (PMSD). But I do not tell him what to do. He knows what he has to do. He is professional like me. He knows politics and he knows everything, so it’s up to him?

Is he a member of the PMSD?

Well he is more or less a bit pro-PMSD.

Is he still PMSD now that they are no longer in government?

There was a lot of talk about political scandals and the PMSD was a bit à part. So maybe that influenced him. This is how it is.

So in the family, everybody has his own political views?

Yes. We are liberal. We respect the views of everyone. There is no question of because I am Labour, everybody should be Labour. No. This is not the case.

There are all sorts of political parties on the political scene today and some think tanks which will eventually end up as political parties... How is the political situation likely to evolve in your opinion?

Do you want me to tell you the truth? Most politicians care only about their personal interests and their personal glorification. Nobody acts or reacts in virtue of the interests of this country. This is how I see things.

So if there was an election tomorrow, who would you vote for?

I am Labour. I will vote Labour. But with the hope that Labour will not forget its source.

What source is that?

Labour needs new blood. I have been saying it since 2014. Labour needs new blood. Young people with a vision for the country. People who do politics not for their personal glorification or interest but because there is an objective to obtain for this country.

Do you think the leadership should change?

To replace the current leader by whom? Is there someone waiting who can succeed? There is nobody. You cannot decapitate an army without replacing the general. A leader is not an ordinary member. You can change an ordinary member and the army will still be there but if you change the general, there needs to be a replacement for the general.

So what do you want to change then?

The executive committee, the politburo and the Labour voters’ wishes have to be taken into consideration. I am not in favour of changing the leader without replacing him by someone who is as capable and who can command the respect of the population. Right now, there is no one.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us: touria.prayag@lexpress.mu