Opposition upset over delay of censure motion debate
OPPOSITION members of Parliament have taken offence that a request by chairman of the recently concluded Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry, Emile George, QC, for Parliament to hold off on debating a censure motion against their colleague Dr Peter Phillips until the report of that commission is completed is the reason that motion has been delayed.
According to Parliamentary convention, censure motions are debated with dispatch. The reason behind the delay in debating the motion, brought against Dr Phillips by Government MP for North East St Catherine Gregory Mair, came quite unexpectedly to parliamentarians attending a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament at Gordon House in Kingston Tuesday .
Several parliamentarians had been in the process of expressing concern over the length of time it took to clear motions from the Order Paper of the House after notice had been given when Opposition MP for South Manchester Michael Peart brought that censure motion as a case in point.
“My concern is that there is no deadline. In other words, if it doesn’t happen nothing is done to resolve the matter. In the previous year, there was a censure motion tabled in this House, it fell off the Order Paper. One argument is that it shouldn’t be there in the first place, however, it came back on the Order Paper for this session and the tradition for a censure motion is that they are dealt with promptly. Is it that we are playing political football with the business of government or we’re just not managing properly?” Peart asked.
It was at that point that House Speaker and Committee Chair Delroy Chuck informed members that George, in a letter to him, had requested that the motion remain untouched until the commission had presented its report.
“That letter came to me a few weeks ago. It is a recommendation on his part. I did report that to the member and the leader of the House. To be fair, it’s not a matter that I brought up to the House. The idea was that if the report of the commission was in on May 16, as was promised, a date would be set for it to be debated,” Chuck told the committee.
Opposition MP for South St Catherine Fitz Jackson was, however, uneasy with that decision.
“The reason it is a convention in the Parliament that censure motions are dealt with expeditiously is that a concern about the legitimacy of a member must not be hanging indefinitely. The House must act one way or the other. It is not fair for any member of this House to have a censure motion sitting in this House questioning his integrity and no action is taken,” Jackson said.
“If in the instant case it was deemed pertinent for the matter not to be debated, I think the appropriate thing is to withdraw the censure motion until such time than have it sitting on the Order Paper indefinitely and that member has to live with the fact that there is a censure motion sitting in the House against him or her. It is improper and it’s unfair and moreover what you have reported on I am hearing it for the first time. None of us knew,” he continued.
His colleague Ronald Thwaites, who represents Central Kingston, said that request raised a bigger question.
“What legal power does a commissioner of enquiry have to dictate to the Parliament of this country how it does or doesn’t do its business? If it is a recommendation, what is the basis for that recommendation?” he asked.
Chuck, in noting that the House did not have to accept the proposal of the commissioner, said he was of the view that legal counsel for the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) had written to George who had made the request based on their concerns.
“To be fair, we don’t have to accept that recommendation. My view is that he was written to by legal counsel for the PNP,” Chuck explained, adding that he would consult with House leader Andrew Holness and request that the matter be dealt with expeditiously.
“It should be withdrawn,” Jackson offered.
“You can ask for it to be withdrawn,” Chuck pointed out.
“Good judgement should dictate that,” Jackson countered.
The Motion calls for Dr Phillips to be censured for signing the two controversial memoranda of understanding (MOUs) relating to investigation of drug trafficking and organised crime in 2004, without informing the then prime minister and Cabinet.
Mair has contended that Phillips, based on his unilateral actions as minister of national security at the time, acted in violation of Section 69 of the Jamaican Constitution.
That section of the Constitution holds Cabinet members responsible for seeking the approval and endorsement of Cabinet on any matter of policy which is of “critical importance and consequence to the lives of Jamaicans”.
The motion further calls on the House to agree that all members of Cabinet, upon demitting office as a consequence of a change of administration or otherwise, give under oath a statement on all matters of critical importance to the nation concerning their office to the incoming minister and, by extension, to the prime minister.
Dr Phillips, who served as minister of national security from 2001 to 2007, signed the MOUs giving local and foreign law enforcement agencies the right to intercept all landline and cellphone conversations on Cable and Wireless (now LIME) and Digicel switches in an effort to gather intelligence in the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime under a programme named Operation ANTHEM.
Dr Phillips has, however, insisted that the MOUs did not violate the rights of Jamaicans. The United States had brandished the secret MOUs before the Golding Government when it balked at signing the extradition warrant for Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke last year. Jamaica had asserted that wiretap evidence on which the request was based was illegally obtained.