Rowe’s removal of concern to Browne

by COLVILLE MOUNSEY colvillemounsey@nationnews.com

GOVERNMENT’S DECISION to remove Deputy Speaker of the House, Neil Rowe, two days before his arraignment for rape, is not sitting well with one of its backbenchers.

In an immediate reaction, Dr Sonia Browne told the MIDWEEK NATION that she is concerned that the move could prejudice the case, which is set for the High Court tomorrow.

This view was echoed by Rowe’s attorney, Michael Lashley KC, who contended that given the high-profile nature of the case, there is no way to “purge the jury’s mind” of the perceived messaging behind Parliament’s action.

Browne said: “One must be concerned about how it looks to the public that the party has basically told him to step down at the 11th hour before he goes to court. At the end of the day this is the gentleman’s life and I think that we as a party should still be mindful of the issues that he is facing, the mental state that he is facing and the pressure that he is facing.

“This is not to say I have ruled him innocent or guilty because I believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty. I believe that external influence does not help, we have social media to contend with and now we as a Parliament have added to that. The timing was not ideal.”

Rowe was removed as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly via a motion brought by Deputy Prime Minister Santia Bradshaw, the Leader of Government Business.

However, Browne said that the Members of Parliament should have been given the opportunity to have their concerns heard when the motion was placed before the Lower House yesterday. She also queried why this was not done when Rowe was first charged in 2022.

“I thought the matter was something worth discussing in Parliament and in the presence of the public, but the process went through very quickly. It is my view that there is a judiciary to take care of those cases and then there is Parliament to pass legislation and those should be kept separate. My concern is that there is a possibility of prejudicing that case that has now taken up the media’s attention,” Browne said.

She added: “You had time to have that discussion with him to determine whether he would have stepped down. I thought it would have been taken better at that stage. These were charges known since October 2022 and that is long time to deal with this and to decide on the next step.

“Additionally, I am aware that [Speaker of the House] Arthur Holder had represented Rowe very briefly and I must query if it is in good practice or standing that he chaired that part of the proceedings today [Yesterday]. This is one of the questions that were bothering me.”

Meanwhile, Lashley told the MIDWEEK NATION that he plans to take instructions from his client regarding the way forward following yesterday’s decision.

“My client is about to face a jury trial and I believe that the action today [yesterday], given that the case is high profile, is extremely prejudicial to my client’s right to a fair trial. This will only work to the prejudice of my client’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. We have a jury that will be selected to hear the case and I do not care what you say, the jury’s mind cannot be purged of this action that was taken in Parliament. A man is fired days before an arraignment and must now face a jury,” he stressed.

(left) speaking at the town hall meeting. Also in the picture are product officer in the product quality unit in the Ministry of Tourism Ruth Phillips (second left) and acting manager in the product quality unit Nicole Bancroft. (Picture by Lennox Devonish.)