President of the Senate, Wade Mark, was on Monday night forced to cast a deciding vote in favour of the government, the second such move within a 96 hour period, as controversy continues here over his decision to have done so on another piece of controversial legislation last Thursday.
Mark used his vote to break the 15-15 tie as opposition and nine independent legislators voted against the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Amendment Bill.
‘I exercise the casting vote in favour of the Ayes. So we’re now 16 for and 15 against – the bill is passed,’ Mark said as government legislator thumped their desk and the opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) sought to get clarification from Mark over his vote.
‘My reasons remain as constant as the Northern Star … Listen, listen, listen. The Standing Order is very clear – I don’t have to give a reason – I don’t have to give a reason! The Standing Orders is very clear and because Senator (Faris) Al-Rawi has asked the question, I’ve said again, because of my last casting vote, there’s no settled practice as it relates to this question of the Standing Orders …am… the casting vote, rather, in respect of the status quo. That is my reason,’ Mark added.
Last Thursday, Mark was forced to vote with the government over the passage of the Special Operations Bill (SOB) which the government had introduced to replace the failed Zones of Special Operations (ZOSOs).
Attorney General John Jeremie had told legislators then that the SOB legislation does not grant powers equivalent to a state of emergency (SoE) and that Kamla Persad-Bissessar the government accepts that the new legislation ‘might interfere with the right of the individual to liberty and to the enjoyment of property’ under the Constitution, as well as the right of the individual to respect his private and family life and the freedom of movement.
Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar later accused the independent legislators appointed by the President Christine Kangaloo as ‘satanic,’ ‘demons’ and ‘scumbags’ and accused them of siding with criminals by rejecting the SOB legislation.
She then said that she would no longer accept amendments from the independent bench.
But as the Senate debated the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Amendment Bill 2026, indepdent legislator and Senior Counsel told legislators that it would take ‘a lot more than holy water and mantras’ to get him to support the government’s Procurement Bill.
Vieira, who raised several concerns about the proposed changes to the country’s procurement framework, said he deliberately decided against preparing amendments to the bill because of the prime minister’s earlier declaration.
‘Mr President, it is going to take a lot more than holy water and mantras to get me to vote in support of this bill,’ he said, adding that ‘a benefit of being satanic and demonic is that I have insight into the souls of men.
‘I understand those whose moral compasses and codes are compromised, as I understand the seven deadly sins, in particular, greed.’
Vieira said despite his concerns, he believed the Procurement Bill could be improved, noting that ‘with all the faults and potential for abuse, with the right amendments, I believe this bill is salvageable.
‘I had hoped that the benches would have worked together to avoid a financial ambush dressed up as ease of doing business. But in light of the Prime Minister’s declared refusal to accept amendments from the independent bench, I decided to save my time and energy,’ Vieira said.
The Procurement Bill proposes several significant changes to the existing procurement framework, including expanded exemptions covering energy, national security, public-private partnerships for public housing and emergency procurement. It also proposes increasing the simplified procurement threshold to two million dollars for certain public bodies, while making changes to the powers and consequences flowing from investigations by the Office of Procurement Regulation (OPR).
Vieira said while increasing the figure from one million dollars was not inherently unreasonable, he objected to removing the simplified procurement framework governing transactions beneath that threshold.
Vieira said there was a parallel between what he believes is happening to the regulator and the government’s treatment of independent senators.
‘Sadly, like us on the independent bench, there are those who would like to see her too marginalised, helpless or made useless,’ he said, adding that the issue ultimately came down to how much discretion the state should have over public money without independent procedural safeguards.
‘We spent years building this system. Let’s improve it. Let’s simplify it and modernise it. Let’s make it work faster. But let’s not dismantle it,’ he said. I am not willing to sacrifice the guardrails of good governance, ostensibly on the altar of efficiency and ease of doing business.’
Meanwhile, the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) has called upon Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar to withdraw her remarks regarding the independent legislators calling also on Mark to take the necessary action to ensure the reputation of the Senate is preserved.
‘LATT reminds the Prime Minister that our democracy depends on her Government hearing and considering the views of those who do not sit at her table in Government,’ LATT said in a statement, adding that it had taken note of Persad-Bissessar’s ‘disparaging independent senators for voting against legislation proposed by the Government and this time, vowing not to accept any amendments proposed by those Senators in the future.
‘The Prime Minister also made disparaging remarks against the independent bench on the last occasion that her Government failed to secure their support. On both occasions, the Government refused to entertain amendments proposed by the independent bench which could have secured their support.’
LATT also made reference to a government legislator who said to the effect that it was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution that an elected government should have to depend on the votes of members of the independent bench and that requiring Government to do so to pass legislation would be undemocratic.
But LATT said ‘the intention of the framers of the Constitution can be gleaned from the clear language of the Constitution, sections 39 and 40 of which provide that ‘There shall be a Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago which shall consist of the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives.’.
LATT notes that the ‘Senate shall consist of thirty-one members (in this Constitution referred to as ‘Senators’) who shall be appointed by the President in accordance with this section’ and that of the 31 Senators, 16 shall be appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister; six shall be appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and nine shall be appointed by the President in his discretion from outstanding persons from economic or social or community organisations and other major fields of endeavour.’
LATT also responded to Persad-Bissessar’s statement that the Senate comprises of non-elected legislators, saying ‘of course, no member of the Senate (Government, Opposition or Independent) is elected to the Senate via the polls.
‘Nevertheless, the constitutional arrangements on which our democracy is founded quite clearly contemplate that the creation of legislation involves the participation of the Senate, a body which comprises in part persons who are not aligned to the elected government.
‘That is the way the legislative process has always worked since independence, and these are the arrangements under which every elected government has been constitutionally required to operate to date,’ LATT added.
Former House speaker Bridgid Annisette-George has meantime rejected attempts to cite her 2017 casting votes in Parliament as a precedent for Mark’s deciding vote, saying that was a ‘critical distinction’ between the circumstances in which she exercised casting votes.
‘What a stretch to state that the precedent for the breach of the Denison Principle by the Senate President on the Special Operations Bill was set in 2017 by the then Speaker of the House!’ Annisette-George said in a statement on Monday.
Her comments directly contradicts those made by constitutional commentator, Professor Hamid Ghany, who had argued that her use of casting votes in 2017 effectively displaced the British parliamentary convention governing how a presiding officer should break a tie. Ghany contends there has been no settled local practice since then and that Mark was entitled to cast his vote as he did.
But Annisette-George said that the Denison Principle, a parliamentary convention which requires a presiding officer to preserve the status quo when breaking a tie and avoid using a casting vote to determine a substantive matter if members are deadlocked.
She said the principle does not simply require a presiding officer to vote against the government. Rather, she said a casting vote may be used to allow further discussion, while a final vote should preserve existing law or the existing position unless a majority supports change.
‘In none of the four instances cited by the Professor was the casting vote a determining or final vote on the substantive issue before the House of Representatives. The four 2017 casting votes were not used to determine substantive legislative change. That is the critical distinction which the Professor’s analysis overlooks,’ she added.
Former House speaker Nizam Mohammed has also argued that Annisette-George’s 2017 votes were materially different because they did not finally determine government legislation. Ghany, however, maintains her actions altered the local practice surrounding casting votes.