Censure motion, Trafigura…and what a day it was in the House!
Journalists were scampering all over Gordon House on Tuesday to keep up with the news, as the two political parties in Parliament – the ruling People’s National Party (PNP) and the opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) – gave clear indications as to what can be expected as the general election approaches.
Unfortunately, the lobby was out of bounds to the media again, as the police insisted on its new policy that only MPs are allowed into the lobby, although it could be observed at the end of the sitting that one area of the lobby was loaded with government supporters.
As the time approached for the 2:00 pm start to the sitting, it became obvious that something special was in the offing. A large crowd of PNP supporters assembled at the corner of Beeston and Duke streets. A smaller, but very colourful crowd of JLP supporters took over the Charles/Beeston streets end.
The public gallery was full, which was very unusual, except for special occasions, and the noisy atmosphere was very ominous.
Donald Buchanan (South West St Elizabeth), who brought the censure motion against veteran opposition MP, Karl Samuda (North Central St. Andrew) for claiming that public administrator, Noel Hylton had submitted a report on the controversial Sandals Whitehouse hotel project, opened the debate.
He noted that Hylton had stated that he had never submitted a report on Sandals Whitehouse to former Prime Minister P J Patterson, and reinforced it with similar public statements, and that both men’s integrity was sufficient to support those statements.
Buchanan rated Hylton as one of the finest public servants ever to serve the country, and Patterson as, “a man internationally acclaimed, recognised and acknowledged”.
Buchanan suggested that Samuda had a pattern of attack without evidence to support it.
“I must conclude, Mr Speaker, that the Member from North Central St Andrew has run amok and consistently sought to bring the integrity of the House into disrepute by presenting misleading information to the House. I am seeking this afternoon an appropriate punishment from this House be meted out to this member, that he will understand that it is a breach, in fact, pretty close to being a crime, against this House to have sought to mislead this House so consistently over so many different presentations in Parliament. And, I call upon this House to mete out the appropriate punishment to the member,” he said.
The Leader of the Opposition, Bruce Golding, then arose and warned the House that the (so-called Hylton) report would be presented to the House, “today”, because it formed a substantial part of an amendment to the resolution that he had brought.
“This is not a concocted document. This is a very, very significant document,” Golding said, quoting from the document.
He said that Hylton had stated that he was not recruited as an arbitrator but, “was requested to ascertain certain limited facts and report the results of my findings and of any agreement that I achieve between the parties”.
He said that this was significant because the explanation that Hylton offered, that because he could not get the parties to agree he didn’t bother to submit the report, was not faithful to the terms of reference.
He said that Hylton said that he did not think that it was necessary to submit a report and accordingly did not submit one.
“Nowhere: not in this letter (to the Urban Development Corporation), nor in any statement that he has made, has Mr Hylton denied knowledge of this document, or has he denied responsibility for the preparation of it,” Golding said.
He said that the Government MPs had taken a position that, “I don’t want to hear about it, I don’t want to see it, I don’t want to know what is in it; from the mere fact that it wasn’t submitted, please keep it as far from me as possible”.
Golding noted that the document stated that the report was “submitted by…” and not “prepared by…” which signified that the persons who prepared it had signed off on the contents.
The Leader of the Opposition’s first challenge was a Point of Order from independent MP Abe Dabdoub (North East St Catherine) who noted that he was quoting from a document which the members knew nothing about.
Golding said that he could easily resolve the problem, by having the orderlies hand out the copies, as he had printed enough for all the members.
The Speaker allowed Golding to proceed and the Orderlies began distributing the copies. But, minutes later, government backbencher, Sharon Hay-Webster (South Central St Catherine) rose on another Point of Order stating that she would not accept the copy of the report because it had not been submitted to the government.
The Speaker, Michael Peart, explained that there was no rule to prevent Golding from tabling the document he had been reading from.
The Acting Leader, Fitz Jackson (acting for Dr Peter Phillips) then rose and raised a Point of Clarification asking whether the document should be allowed, not having been submitted to cabinet prior to coming to the House.
The Speaker said: Have a seat Mr Golding. Let me clarify the issue. Mr Golding is not tabling a report that was submitted to the Prime Minister. He is tabling a report that was prepared by Mr Hylton.
Deputy speaker O T Williams rose, on another Point of Order, saying that Golding forgot that the report should have been laid prior so that Members could have studied it.
“Mr Williams,” said Speaker Peart, “If Mr Golding is not allowed to circulate this document, then equally he should not be allowed to quote from it…The rule of the Parliament is that if you are quoting from a document you must be able to present Members with copies. If there is a question of the authenticity then raise the matter.”
Hay-Webster said that the members had no proof.
“If it is a submitted report, where is the letter of submission? Who was it submitted to? How then do you confirm its authenticity?” she asked the Speaker.
Fitz Jackson rose again and said that he would like to know if the House could be advised of the origin of the document.The Speaker ignored the Acting House Leader and told the Leader of the Opposition to proceed.
“I hope what I have to say is not gratuitous,” Golding reacted. “But, I do feel that you in the chair really ought to urge members to read this (the Standing Orders), and this really should be prescribed reading.”
“People ought not to spend as much time in the House, as some of them have, and raise the sort of trivial arguments under the guise of a Point of Order and, perhaps, what you ought to do: when members from either side raise a Point of Order, maybe you ought to ask them to cite the Standing Order under which they are raising that Point of Order. There is nothing, either in the Standing Orders, or Mais, that excludes any document whatsoever from being brought to the House. People must go home and do some homework. That’s what the people send us here to do,” he added.
Golding then referred to the conclusions in the report including Gorstew’s responsibilities.
Government backbencher, John Junor, accused Golding of breaching standing Order 35(2) by referring to a pending judicial decision.
The Opposition Leader said he accepted the Point, but that it reminded him of the Bob Marley song, I Shot the Sheriff, But I didn’t shoot the Deputy.
Censure Motion
Golding then noted that the government had the numbers to pass the censure motion.
“In my view, it would be a corrupt use of the majority that you have on that side. When we brought a censure motion against the minister of finance who, in a moment of indiscretion, confessed to having committed monumental indiscretions, ‘run wid it’, that side (said that) the member was not worthy of censure.
“We brought a motion of censure against the minister of commerce and whatever for his mismanagement of the cement industry, that led to shutdowns…but the government said that was not worthy of censure.”
He accused the government of displaying a peculiar behaviour in supressing exposure and then seek to punish whistleblowers.
“In my view, Mr Speaker, that is a discredit to this Parliament,” he said.
He accused the government of “batter battering” the Contractor-General in the PAC, and now doing the same to Samuda in the House.
He said that the Opposition would oppose the motion and dismiss it as a charade and condemn it as contemptuous of the people.
“He will carry that censure as a badge of honour. He will wear that censure as a symbol of his service to the Jamaican people and he will be proud to have been censured, because it is a measure of the price that one must pay for standing up against the perniciousness of this…government.”
He said that the censure motion raised two essential questions: (1) what is the role of Parliament; and, (2) how is that role to be carried out?
At this point, Golding went into the section of his speech dealing with the Nigerian oil trading deal with Trafigura and the contribution to the PNP’s campaign funds.
The Speaker warned him to confine himself to the subject before the House, as is required under section 35(1) of the Standing Orders.
But, Golding said that he had a duty to defend the integrity of the members on his side and that was what he was seeking to do.
The Speaker said that while he had that right it had to conform to the rules.
“The matter you are raising has no relevance whatsover to this substantive motion. I am asking you to continue, but desist from that,” the Speaker said.
Golding said that he was prepared to give it some relevance.
The Speaker suggest that he bring a substantive motion.
“What I am prepared to say to you, Mr Speaker, is that the same persons who have concocted this motion, concocted this plan to censure the member have been engaged in transactions, the likes of which I have never seen in this country before. The likes of which would bring down governments in any respectful democracy. It has to do with funds under the oil agreement through Trafigura which were deposited in the accounts of the People’s National Party last month. That’s what it has to do with,” Golding said.
“They have the gall to come here and censure that member. You are talking about thirty-odd million dollars of money that we are going to be called upon to account for. That’s what we are talking about. and you tell me, Mr Speaker, that it has no relevance. I shall be calling a press conference tomorrow to lay it on the table and provide the documentary evidence.”
The Opposition then walked out of the House amidst an uproar on both sides as well as shouts from the gallery.
After the Opposition’s walked out, the debate resumed with Government backbencher K D Knight asking the Speaker whether he had the authority to demand that Samuda remain in the chamber despite the walk-out.
The Speaker said it was Samuda’s privilege to leave the chamber if he so chose.
“I wanted to see the white of his eyes as I speak,” Knight added.