THE Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives is to invite Opposition Member of Parliament Karl Samuda (North Central St Andrew) to its next meeting, to clarify his statements on a report on the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project which was allegedly submitted to the Cabinet in 2005 by Port Authority chairman Noel Hylton.

The committee is seeking to cite Samuda for contempt or breach of privilege, for insisting that the Hylton’s report, which followed his discussions with the shareholders in the hotel – the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ) and Gorstew Limited – at the request of former Prime Minister P J Patterson, was submitted to Patterson and the Cabinet.

Both Patterson and the Cabinet have insisted that they did not receive the report, and Hylton has stated since that he did not submit the report.

“I believe that Mr Samuda should be afforded the opportunity here to state, in the present conditions, whether he now understands that no report was submitted or received by the PM, or he has evidence to show otherwise,” Speaker of the House and chairman of the Privileges Committee, Michael Peart ruled yesterday.

“I think it comes down to that. The gravamen of the situation is the submission of a report by Mr Hylton and the receipt of that report by the former prime minister, and I think we should afford Mr Samuda the opportunity to clarify that. Based on his response, then we will know where to go from there,” Peart concluded.

His decision followed a very detailed presentation from Leader of the Opposition Bruce Golding, in which he put to the committee that there was no basis on which Samuda could be cited for contempt.

Golding pointed out that Samuda’s statement was made in the House several months prior to Hylton’s public acknowledgment, by way of a letter to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament in December last year, and that although the report was drafted by him based on the functions assigned to him by Patterson, it was not submitted to Patterson.

He said that in responding to the charge given to the committee by the House of Representatives, to determine whether Samuda’s actions constitute a breach of privilege, or, alternatively, contempt of the House, would require consideration of what is privilege and what is contempt.

He said that since the Standing Orders only paid scant attention to the issue of privilege, and was even less helpful in relation to contempt, the committee had to resort to the guidance of the practices of the House of Commons and Sir Erskine May’s book on British parliamentary practices, considered the “bible” of Westminster, from which he quoted.

He noted that, in terms of freedom of speech in debates, May advised that, subject to the rules of order in debate, “a member may state whatever he thinks fit in a debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings or injurious to the character of individuals and he is protected by the privilege from any actions for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation”.

He said that this practice of the House of Commons was to create a platform for freedom of speech in the House because it is felt that if the members represent the people they must have protection although with some constraints.