Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>BALFORD HENRY, Observer writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>AN attempt by the Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives to sanction Opposition MP Karl Samuda, for allegedly misleading Parliament, fell through yesterday after Opposition Leader Bruce Golding contested the committee's authority to penalise the member.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Using the parliamentary reference materials - the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice - Golding contended that with the House of Representatives having censured Samuda on October 3, the Privileges Committee had no authority to punish him for being censured.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Parliament has censured him, that's the end of that matter," Golding said. "When Parliament in 1971 censured Mr Michael Manley and the resolution was carried, that was the end of that matter."<P class=StoryText align=justify>He said that the question of punishment was a separate issue altogether, because Samuda could not be punished for being censured.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"You can only be punished if you have committed an infraction, and that infraction can only be contempt or a breach of privilege. But, in the decision of Parliament, not once in this resolution is there either the word contempt or privilege. Not once," Golding insisted.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He was strongly supported by his Opposition colleagues Olivia "Babsy" Grange and Clive Mullings.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The Speaker of the House and chairman of the committee Michael Peart, however, objected to the point, and was supported by government members Charles Learmond, O T Williams, Victor Cummings and Dr Patrick Harris. He insisted that Samuda's alleged act of misleading the House that Port Authority chairman Noel Hylton had submitted a report on issues between the parties to the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project to the Cabinet was an act of contempt.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, Peart eventually relented, under constant explanations from Golding. He agreed with the opposition leader's proposal that the matter be referred back to the House of Representatives to explain the committee's terms of reference.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The issue dates back to the passage of a motion in the House on October 3, censuring Samuda for insisting that Hylton's report had been submitted to the government.<P class=StoryText align=justify>An amendment was tacked on to the motion, moved by current Minister of Information and Development Donald Buchanan, stating that the issue should be referred to the Privileges Committee to sit and consider appropriate sanctions against the member.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, Golding pointed out that there was no provision in the rules of Parliament obtained in the Standing Orders or in the conventions of the House, for any punishment in relation to a censure.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>AN attempt by the Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives to sanction Opposition MP Karl Samuda, for allegedly misleading Parliament, fell through yesterday after Opposition Leader Bruce Golding contested the committee's authority to penalise the member.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Using the parliamentary reference materials - the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice - Golding contended that with the House of Representatives having censured Samuda on October 3, the Privileges Committee had no authority to punish him for being censured.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Parliament has censured him, that's the end of that matter," Golding said. "When Parliament in 1971 censured Mr Michael Manley and the resolution was carried, that was the end of that matter."<P class=StoryText align=justify>He said that the question of punishment was a separate issue altogether, because Samuda could not be punished for being censured.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"You can only be punished if you have committed an infraction, and that infraction can only be contempt or a breach of privilege. But, in the decision of Parliament, not once in this resolution is there either the word contempt or privilege. Not once," Golding insisted.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He was strongly supported by his Opposition colleagues Olivia "Babsy" Grange and Clive Mullings.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The Speaker of the House and chairman of the committee Michael Peart, however, objected to the point, and was supported by government members Charles Learmond, O T Williams, Victor Cummings and Dr Patrick Harris. He insisted that Samuda's alleged act of misleading the House that Port Authority chairman Noel Hylton had submitted a report on issues between the parties to the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel project to the Cabinet was an act of contempt.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, Peart eventually relented, under constant explanations from Golding. He agreed with the opposition leader's proposal that the matter be referred back to the House of Representatives to explain the committee's terms of reference.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The issue dates back to the passage of a motion in the House on October 3, censuring Samuda for insisting that Hylton's report had been submitted to the government.<P class=StoryText align=justify>An amendment was tacked on to the motion, moved by current Minister of Information and Development Donald Buchanan, stating that the issue should be referred to the Privileges Committee to sit and consider appropriate sanctions against the member.<P class=StoryText align=justify>However, Golding pointed out that there was no provision in the rules of Parliament obtained in the Standing Orders or in the conventions of the House, for any punishment in relation to a censure.
Comment