The Public Accounts Committee will begin the process of having CEO of the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), Fitzgerald Mitchell, held accountable after he failed for a third time to appear before lawmakers probing an Auditor General’s report into the hospital’s operations, despite being formally summoned to Parliament.

The move came on Tuesday after Mitchell again failed to attend a hearing of the committee, which is examining findings from the Auditor General’s performance audit of the UHWI. Committee chairman Julian Robinson said Mitchell neither appeared nor provided any explanation for his absence, despite being served with a summons on June 8.

“We have received no correspondence from Mr Mitchell, nor his lawyer indicating his absence. And in view of his absence from this meeting, there is a process that will be triggered,” Robinson told the committee.

Mitchell’s continued absence drew sharp criticism from members, particularly as the committee had specifically requested his presence to answer questions arising from the audit, which highlighted significant weaknesses in procurement, governance and record keeping at the hospital.

Former CEO Kevin Allen and former board chairman Wayne Chai Chong, both of whom were also called before the committee as part of its examination of the report, appeared and gave evidence during previous sittings. Robinson pointed to their cooperation as he questioned Mitchell’s refusal to engage with the committee.

“It is very concerning that a public official who is in a position of authority, having been invited first, not responded, having been summoned, no response either from himself nor his lawyer, is in contempt and in breach of the Parliament,” Robinson said.

Senior Legislative Counsel Tiffany Stewart advised members that all legal and administrative procedures required to serve the summons had been followed in accordance with the Senate and House of Representatives Powers and Privileges Act and the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives.

She warned that Mitchell’s failure to attend could constitute an offence under the Act and could be reported to the House as a contempt of Parliament.

However, Stewart noted that the legislation contains what many members viewed as an outdated penalty.

Under the current law, a person found guilty of contempt faces a maximum fine of $200 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for up to 12 months.

Robinson said the penalty was clearly inadequate and undermined Parliament’s ability to carry out its oversight role.
He argued that allowing public officials to ignore invitations and summonses without consequence could weaken Parliament’s ability to hold public bodies accountable.

“It can’t be that a committee designed to ensure accountability, transparency, and good governance will have its work subverted simply because a public officer refuses to appear before it,” Robinson said.

The committee subsequently agreed to prepare a report to the Speaker of the House outlining Mitchell’s failure to comply with the summons and requesting that the process set out under the law be initiated.