Of the countries that are members of the Caribbean Community (Caricom), Trinidad and Tobago is the only one where freedom of the press is expressly recognised and, it would be assumed, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Indeed, the country has a vibrant press that, more than occasionally, makes life uncomfortable for pompous and self-absorbed officials who would prefer that their actions and activities related to their public functions be shielded from public scrutiny.

Of significance, too, is that many of those who have contributed to building Trinidad and Tobago's worthy media tradition have been generous with their skills and experience in the region.

All this, however, is not to suggest that life is a bed of roses for the Trinidadian press. For truth be told, the media in that southern Caribbean country has faced its fair share of turbulence.

It has had to fight off attempts by officialdom to place it in restraints, if not full muzzle, such as the 1990s efforts by the then administration of former prime minister, Basdeo Panday, with its ill-conceived and happily aborted media policy.

Tensions

Mr Panday's attack on Jones P. Madeira, the paper's editor, and other staff of the Trinidad Guardian played no small role in the dislocations at that newspaper. Mr Panday's lambasting of Mr Ken Gordon still reverberates today.

But the tensions between the Trinidadian press and the government did not end with the departure of Mr Panday's United National Congress and the election of Patrick Manning's People's National Movement (PNM). Indeed, Mr Manning and the PNM are no less sensitive to criticism and scrutiny, which sometimes leads to threats of sanctions.

But even then, we are surprised that things would reach as far as the developments this week. The speaker of Parliament, Barry Sinanan, at the urging of Information Minister Neil Parsanlal, referred two journalists, Samantha John and Sasha Mohammed, to the Privileges Committee of the House for alleged contempt of Parliament.

Tangential involvement

It is an issue in which Jamaica has a tangential involvement via two attorneys, Dr Lloyd Barnett and Michael Hylton, who wrote separate opinions supporting the Trinidadian government's position that a judge acted wrongly when, in a later case, he forwarded to the police and the DPP an affidavit that the Privy Council had ordered struck out in an earlier and separate matter.

This matter has generated great controversy in Port-of-Spain and is the source of running contretemps between the Law Society and the country's attorney general, John Jeremie, who criticised the judge from Parliament.

Minister Parsanlal and Speaker Sinanan did not like John's and Mohammad's report on the issue for TV6, especially whether Mr Jeremie had over-stepped the bounds of privilege in his criticism of the judge, and whether more opposition than government members faced censure for misbehaviour in the House.

We make no pronouncement on the factual or contextual accuracy of John's and Mohammed's reporting, but acknowledge that reporters do sometimes make errors. The press is usually happy to correct mistakes.

There is nothing in this case, that we discern, that is so egregious that would demand calling these journalists before a parliamentary tribunal, except it is an attempt to intimidate not only John and Mohammed but the media in its entirety. This is a dangerous move, from which Speaker Sinanan should retreat.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.