Parliamentary Privilege in Trinidad and Tobago: Section 55, the Powers and Privileges Act, and the Tobago House of Assembly

Under the law of Trinidad and Tobago, members of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Tobago House of Assembly enjoy a constitutional immunity known as parliamentary privilege. Section 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 guarantees freedom of speech in proceedings, and the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02 gives that immunity statutory force, shielding members from civil suit, criminal prosecution and arrest in respect of words spoken or acts done in the course of parliamentary business.

What is Parliamentary Privilege?

Parliamentary privilege is the body of special legal protections, immunities and powers attached to the legislature and its members so that the institution can debate, legislate and hold the Executive to account without external interference. The doctrine has its roots in Article 9 of the English Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that "the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." That principle was inherited by Trinidad and Tobago at independence and codified in the 1976 Republican Constitution.

Privilege has two faces. The first is individual — protections that attach to each Member personally, such as freedom of speech and freedom from arrest in civil matters. The second is collective — powers belonging to the House as a whole, including the power to regulate its own proceedings, to discipline its Members, and to punish persons (Members or strangers) for contempt.

In practice, this is one of the most commonly misunderstood areas of T&T public law. Citizens regularly ask whether they can sue a Senator for a statement made on the floor, or whether the Speaker can be challenged in court for a ruling. The answer in most cases is no — the courts will not enter the chamber.

What Does Section 55 of the Constitution Protect?

Section 55 of the Constitution provides that, without prejudice to any provision made by Parliament regarding the powers, privileges and immunities of each House, its committees and members, no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any Member for words spoken before, or written in a report to, the House or a committee, or by reason of any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition, Bill, resolution, motion or otherwise.

Three features of section 55 deserve emphasis:

The protection is absolute, not qualified. Unlike qualified privilege in defamation, no inquiry into malice, motive or truth is permitted once the statement falls within "proceedings in Parliament."
It binds both civil and criminal courts. A defamatory statement, an allegedly seditious utterance, or words that would otherwise found a charge of incitement cannot be the subject of proceedings if uttered in the chamber.
It is anchored in the Constitution itself, which means the protection cannot be removed by ordinary legislation; only a constitutional amendment under section 54 could alter it.

What Does the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act Add?

The Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02 is the principal statute that fleshes out the constitutional guarantee. Its provisions, modelled in part on the United Kingdom Parliamentary Privilege Acts and earlier colonial ordinances, cover the following ground:

Freedom of speech and debate — re-stating in statutory form the immunity provided by section 55.
Immunity from civil arrest — Members may not be arrested in civil process while going to, attending at, or returning from a sitting of either House or of a committee.
Exemption from jury service and, in defined circumstances, from compelled attendance as a witness during sittings.
Protection of officers, witnesses and petitioners appearing before the House or its committees, who enjoy the same immunity for their evidence as Members do for their speech.
The power of each House to summon witnesses, require the production of documents, and administer oaths, and to punish disobedience as contempt.
The power to discipline Members for disorderly conduct, including suspension and, in the most serious cases, expulsion under the relevant Standing Order.
Offences against Parliament — for example, assaulting a Member on his way to the House, bribing a Member, or publishing false reports of proceedings — punishable on summary conviction with a fine and/or imprisonment.

The Act also protects authorised reports of debates, including the official record (Hansard) and broadcasts authorised by the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, under the doctrine of qualified privilege at common law and by statutory extension.

What the Law Says in Trinidad and Tobago

Source	Provision	What it does
Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01, s. 55	Bars civil or criminal proceedings against a Member for words spoken or written in the House or a committee	Constitutional bedrock of freedom of speech in Parliament
Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02	Codifies privileges, immunities and contempt powers of both Houses	Gives statutory teeth to section 55
Tobago House of Assembly Act, No. 40 of 1996 (as amended)	Establishes the THA and confers on it powers, privileges and immunities analogous to those of Parliament in respect of its proceedings	Extends privilege to the THA Chamber in Scarborough
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and the Senate	Govern conduct of business, discipline of Members, and contempt procedure	Enforce privilege internally

The current position is unambiguous: a statement made in proceedings of either House of Parliament, or in a committee, cannot ground a defamation action, a sedition charge, or any other cause of action in a court of Trinidad and Tobago. The remedy for an aggrieved person lies, if at all, with the House itself — by way of a complaint of breach of privilege, a personal explanation, or a withdrawal demanded by the Speaker or President.

How Has Privilege Been Tested in Trinidad and Tobago Courts?

Courts in Trinidad and Tobago have consistently held that they will not inquire into the internal affairs of Parliament. The leading English authority, Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271, established that the House is the sole judge of its own internal proceedings, and that decision has been treated as good law in this jurisdiction.

The doctrine has been examined locally in litigation involving former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, including Panday v Attorney General and related proceedings, in which the High Court and Court of Appeal addressed the boundary between conduct inside the chamber (immune) and conduct outside it (justiciable). Where statements were repeated outside Parliament — at a press conference, in a campaign speech, or in a newspaper interview — the privilege did not attach, and the ordinary law of defamation applied.

The Privy Council has also indirectly addressed the dignity and powers of Tobago's legislative organ in Attorney General v Tobago House of Assembly [2025] UKPC 8, available on BAILII, which examined the relationship between central authority and the THA. While that case turned on different statutory questions, it reinforced that the THA is a constitutionally significant body whose internal processes attract a measure of deference from the courts.

In English authority of persuasive weight in T&T, Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3 established a narrow exception permitting courts to look at Hansard for the purpose of statutory construction where legislation is ambiguous and a clear ministerial statement was made. T&T courts have adopted a similarly cautious approach: Hansard is not generally admissible to prove the truth of what was said, nor to found liability, but may be referred to as an aid to interpretation in defined circumstances.

When is Hansard Inadmissible as Evidence?

The general rule is that the official record of debates may not be tendered to impeach or question proceedings in Parliament. Under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02, and consistent with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, Hansard cannot be used:

to prove that a Member made a defamatory statement, for the purpose of a civil claim;
to support a criminal charge based on words spoken in the House;
to attack the motives, good faith or reasoning of Members in casting a vote.

It may, however, be referenced for non-impeaching purposes, including statutory interpretation under the Pepper v Hart exception, historical record, and academic commentary. The distinction is between using the record and questioning it.

How Does Privilege Apply to the Tobago House of Assembly?

The Tobago House of Assembly was established by the Tobago House of Assembly Act, No. 40 of 1996, enacted under section 141A of the Constitution. The Act confers on the Assembly, its committees and its Members a body of powers, privileges and immunities that mirror, with appropriate modifications, those enjoyed by the National Parliament.

In practical terms this means that:

Assemblymen may speak freely in the THA Chamber in Scarborough without fear of civil suit or criminal prosecution for words uttered in proceedings;
The Presiding Officer enjoys powers analogous to those of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in maintaining order and ruling on questions of privilege;
The THA may discipline its Members, summon witnesses, and treat certain conduct as contempt, subject to the limits set out in the THA Act and Standing Orders;
The internal proceedings of the Assembly are, like those of the Houses of Parliament, generally non-justiciable.

Reform of Tobago's constitutional status has been the subject of sustained work by the Prime Minister's Constitutional Committee for Internal Self-Government for Tobago, of which I am a member. Any move to a more autonomous Tobago legislature would carry with it questions about how parliamentary privilege should be calibrated for a fully self-governing body — but for the present, the THA's privileges flow from the 1996 Act and the Constitution.

Can Parliament Discipline its Own Members?

Yes. Each House is the master of its own discipline. Under the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate may:

Order a Member to withdraw an unparliamentary expression;
Name a Member for grossly disorderly conduct, leading to suspension for a defined number of sitting days;
Refer a question of privilege or contempt to the Committee of Privileges;
Recommend, on a Committee report, more severe sanctions including extended suspension or, in extreme cases, expulsion;
Punish strangers (non-Members) who interfere with proceedings, intimidate Members, or breach the privileges of the House.

Courts will generally decline to review such internal disciplinary action on its merits, save in the narrow circumstances where a constitutional right outside the privilege has been engaged.

What Happens When a Member Repeats a Statement Outside Parliament?

The privilege is lost. A statement repeated at a political meeting, on social media, in a press release, or in an interview is no longer protected by section 55 of the Constitution or the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02. The ordinary law of defamation, contempt of court, or any other applicable cause of action then applies in full.

Based on decisions from the High Court and Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, the test is whether the impugned utterance is part of, or sufficiently connected to, a "proceeding in Parliament." A press conference held in the parliamentary lobby is not a proceeding. A speech in the Chamber, an answer to a parliamentary question, evidence before a Joint Select Committee, and a written report tabled in the House are.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a Senator for something said about me on the floor of the Senate in Trinidad and Tobago?

No. Section 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 prohibits civil or criminal proceedings against a Member for words spoken in the House or a committee. Your remedy lies with the Senate itself, not the courts.

Does parliamentary privilege protect a Member from arrest for a criminal offence?

No, not in respect of indictable criminal offences. The immunity from arrest under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02 covers civil arrest while attending the House. A Member can be arrested for a criminal offence in the ordinary way.

Are Tobago House of Assembly members protected by parliamentary privilege?

Yes. The Tobago House of Assembly Act, No. 40 of 1996 confers on Assembly members and the Assembly itself privileges and immunities analogous to those of the National Parliament, in respect of proceedings of the THA.

Can Hansard be used as evidence in a court case in Trinidad and Tobago?

Generally no. Hansard cannot be tendered to question or impeach what was said in Parliament. It may be referred to in narrow circumstances for statutory interpretation, following the Pepper v Hart exception adopted in T&T courts.

What happens if a Member of Parliament repeats a defamatory statement at a press conference?

The privilege does not extend outside the Chamber. Once the statement is repeated outside parliamentary proceedings, the ordinary law of defamation applies and the Member can be sued. This was the practical result in the Panday line of cases.

Can the Speaker's ruling in the House of Representatives be challenged in court?

Almost never. Following the principle in Bradlaugh v Gossett and the deference shown by T&T courts, internal rulings on order, procedure and privilege are matters for the House. Judicial review is confined to narrow constitutional questions.

What is contempt of Parliament in Trinidad and Tobago?

Contempt covers conduct that obstructs or interferes with the work of Parliament — for example, intimidating a Member, refusing to answer a lawful committee summons, or publishing a false report of proceedings. The Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 2:02 creates specific offences and the House also retains its inherent contempt jurisdiction.

Does parliamentary privilege apply to live broadcasts and recordings of sittings?

Authorised broadcasts and reports issued under the authority of the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago attract qualified privilege at common law, provided they are fair and accurate. Edited or selective republication by third parties does not automatically share the same protection.

Written by Martin George, Attorney-at-Law. Martin George is the founder and principal attorney of Martin George & Company, with more than 35 years of active legal practice in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago. He is a former Commissioner on the Law Reform Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and a member of the Prime Minister's Constitutional Committee for Internal Self-Government for Tobago. This article is published for general information and public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact Martin George & Company.

Last reviewed: April 2026

Parliamentary Privilege in Trinidad and Tobago: How Section 55 and the Powers and Privileges Act Protect MPs, Senators and THA Members