With expressed concerns not addressed by Speaker : PPP to move motion to send Hughes, Ramjattan to Privileges Committee
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) will be moving a motion to have two Alliance For Change (AFC) Members of Parliament (MPs) — Mrs. Cathy Hughes and Mr. K. Ramjattan — appear before a Parliamentary Privileges Committee.
The PPPC intention, according to that party’s General-Secretary Mr Clement Rohee, was communicated to Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs, by its Chief Whip, Madam Gail Teixeira.
At a news conference held at Freedom House yesterday, Rohee explained that the move follows the non-response by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Raphael Trotman, to letters addressing the conflict of interest and pecuniary interests of the two AFC MPs in relation to matters before the National Assembly.
“The PPP still awaits some form of communication from the Speaker in response to its letters to him with regard to conflict of interest,” Rohee said, adding that the motion is being moved under Parliamentary Standing Order 32, which addresses the circumstances around which such a motion can be moved.
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The General Secretary pointed out that, regardless of the Speaker’s non-response to the PPPC’s expressed concerns, there are no statutes of limitations which provide for a particular timeframe within which the issue can be raised.
He said, “Mrs. Hughes’s company was hired to handle the Public Relations for Sithe Global, one of the companies working with the Government on the Amaila Falls Hydro Project. Her husband, Mr. Nigel Hughes, was the company secretary of the Amaila Falls Hydro-Project Inc. Neither of these pecuniary interests was voluntarily made public at the time of the debates on the first Hydro-Electric Bill and the Debt Ceiling motion, which were defeated nor; on the second Hydro-Electric Bill, which was passed, and debt ceiling motion which (was) amended by the AFC.”
Rohee emphatically stressed that the National Assembly and the public had a right to be informed by Mrs. Hughes of the pecuniary interest that she had in the matter; and she had a duty, under the item of “Personal Explanation” on the Order Paper, at the time of her involvement to disclose details of the benefits from such an engagement.
“In the absence of this public disclosure, she should have recused herself from participation in the vote on both issues,” he said.
The same conviction was expressed when the General Secretary addressed the contentious circumstances under which the motion was being moved against Mr. Ramjattan.
He said, “Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan‘s client Fedder Lloyd placed a bid for the tender of the Specialty Hospital in 2012, and Mr. Ramjattan supported in the House the budgetary allocation for the said Hospital. However, in 2013, when his client lost the bid, Mr. Ramjattan voted against the allocations for the said hospital.
“Mr. Ramjattan did not publicly declare his pecuniary interest at either time, and is therefore in violation of Standing Order 107, which states that ‘No Member shall appear before the Assembly or any Committee thereof as counsel or solicitor for any party, or in any capacity for which he or she is to receive a fee or reward’.
“At no time did Mr. Ramjattan recuse himself from voting on the budgetary allocations for the Specialty Hospital.”
Rohee also referred to the AFC’s ties with hotelier Mr. Robert Badal, owner of the Pegasus Hotel.
He said, “The PPP has also taken notice of Mr. Badal’s public declarations that he was a financier of the Alliance For Change at the 2011 General and Regional Elections.
“Mr. Badal has publicly opposed the Marriott Hotel, as it will compete with his hotel. It is passing coincidence that Mr. Ramjattan has publicly and consistently opposed and consistently tried to obstruct the Marriott Hotel project. Mr. Ramjattan at no time informed the House of his or his party’s pecuniary interest.”
HIGH-CRIME
Rohee also highlighted sections of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice 23rd edition, which is essentially a rulebook for MPs.
He said, “The PPP takes note of the treatment of such transgressions of Members of Parliament in the Erskine May’s 23rd edition, page 132, footnote 4, “the Commons resolved in 1695 that “the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and a misdemeanor. The PPP has therefore indicated it will move motions in relation to these two AFC Members of Parliament in accordance with SO 32 (2).”
The PPPC General Secretary also expressed hope for the support of the Speaker to allow these matters to be sent to the Committee of Privileges.
Section 32 of the Parliamentary Standing Orders states that: “(1) A motion directly concerning the privilege of the Assembly shall take precedence over all other business. (2) Any Member desiring to raise a matter under this Standing Order shall first obtain leave of the Speaker, who will determine whether the Member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege.
“(3) If permission is given by the Speaker under paragraph two (2) of this Standing Order, the Member so permitted may raise it any time after Questions to Ministers, and move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
“(4) No debate shall ensue on a motion under this Standing Order, but if the Speaker decides that a prima facie case has been made out, he or she shall so state, and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
“(5) If during a Sitting of the Assembly a matter suddenly arises which appears to involve the Privileges of the Assembly, and which calls for the immediate intervention of the Assembly, the proceedings may be interrupted, save during the progress of a division by a motion based on such a matter.
“(6) No Member moving a matter under this Standing Order may speak for more than fifteen minutes.”