The National Assembly has removed APNU+AFC MP David Patterson as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) following the passage by majority of a motion laid by Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs Gail Teixeira.
The motion which was debated in the wee hours of Tuesday was supported by 34 members of the House: all 33 members of the governing PPP/C and Deputy Speaker Lenox Shuman who represents the three-party joinder list. Thirty-one members of the main opposition voted against.
The debate which began just after midnight was preceded by a ruling by Speaker Manzoor Nadir that it did not violate Standing Order 26 (2) which prohibits the consideration of matters which are sub judice.
Former Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan who leads Patterson’s party, the AFC, asked that the motion be disallowed via the sub-judice rule. He noted that Patterson is currently charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and argued that pejorative statements from the government could prejudice that case.
He reminded that last Thursday the Speaker disallowed a motion related to the flaring by ExxonMobil by invoking Standing Order 26(c). The standing order he argued seeks to ensure that trials are not prejudiced by comments from the Assembly as even magistrates and judges listen to the House when it speaks.
Criminal proceedings, Ramjattan stressed, are extremely sensitive.
“There have been Courts of Law that have ruled that by virtue of publicity given to matters before and during the trial could quash a conviction. It’s important that the sub judice is applied in this case,” he concluded.
Nadir however dis-agreed, pronouncing that the motion calls into consideration Patterson’s conduct as chair rather than the matter in Court.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall also argued that judges have drawn a distinction and have refrained from intervening in the business of the Assembly.
The motion he maintain-ed does not reference any of the charges which Patterson currently faces.
“It has absolutely no relevance, connection or nexus to whatever those charges are,” he said of the motion.
Teixeira later told the House that the government had lost confidence in Patterson because he was not being fair and balanced in his chairmanship of the Committee.
“This story started before February 1 from the time the Public Accounts Committee was formed. We began to see a behaviour that led us to believe that the gentleman chairing was not being fair, was not being balanced and was not granting us a hearing… While examining the Auditor General’s report, issues raised were strongly put down. There was a lack of tolerance… and therefore Mr Speaker I was the one who called on the Chair to resign,” Teixeira declared amidst loud heckles of “shame” from members of the Opposition.
The Minister did not identify which issues were ‘strongly put down”. This explanation for the motion differed distinctly from the government’s previous suggestion that Patterson should resign because of accusations of impropriety in his previous post as Minister of Public Infrastructure.
On February 1 when the motion for Patterson’s removal was first laid in the PAC, Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill told reporters that it was the government’s belief he should not continue to serve as Chairman “in light of what is taking place publicly.”
When Teixeira was asked by Stabroek News on that same day to explain the impetus for the motion the Minister said she did not have to provide any such information.
“I don’t have to give a reason for a motion. I think the public and you are very well aware of some of the issues involved,” she stated.
On Monday she repeated this statement in the House telling opposi-tion members that she didn’t need to have a clear reason to have lost confidence in Patterson.
“I don’t have to have a ground,” she declared in the House.
The Minister preemptively took a swipe at those members who sought to argue that now President Irfaan Ali sat as Chair of the PAC while facing 19 fraud charges but was never subjected to similar approbation.
“Why didn’t you?” she asked.
“You had the majority. You could’ve done it. I can’t answer for you,” she said in response to more heckling.
Teixeira went on to argue that since the motion was first tabled on February 1, Patterson has acted in open violation of the Standing Orders.
“The majority of the members of the Public Accounts Committee have lost confidence in him as the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee,” she stated, echoing the wording of the motion.
She reiterated that Patterson failed to “put” the motion for his removal to the Committee before vacating the seat of Chair at four consecutive meetings and accused the parliamentarian of refusing to adhere to a direction from the Speaker that he put the motion to a vote.
She read from the Speaker’s letter to the Chair revealing that it was Nadir who first used the term “bullyism” to describe the actions of Patterson. According to the Minister, by failing to adhere to the Speaker’s advice or that of the Clerk of the National Assembly on several occasions, Patterson has disrespected the House.
Fellow member of the PAC, Juretha Fernandes, described Teixeira’s presentation as a desperate attempt to explain the inexplicable and justify the unjustifiable.
“The honourable minister has just attempted to bluff this nation into believing this is a proper motion,” she pronounced while disputing the claim that Patterson was ever unfair in his chairmanship.
Acknowledging that the government was going to use its majority to push through the motion, Fernandes however strived to have the record reflect that the motion “lacks substance” and was an attempt to “strong arm the House and avoid financial oversight.”
“This Parliament should be protecting the chair because his oversight is needed,” she declared.
Ramjattan who also contributed to the debate maintained that government confidence in a PAC chair is unnecessary.
“It is not for the government to have confidence in the Chair of the PAC. It is the function of the Opposition to name the Chair in line with Standing Order 82(2). Even if the government has no confidence in David Patterson they have no right to remove him, it is the Opposition that put him there,” he declared.
Addressing the specific accusation of failing to “put” the motion, Ramjattan stressed that rather than a signal of lack of integrity, Patterson’s actions were that of an honourable man.
“What could be more honourable than to recuse yourself from a motion which involves you?” he asked adding that it also could never be wrong for a committee chair to disqualify a motion as their powers mirror that of the Speaker who regularly does the same.
When Patterson recused himself, no other opposition MP took on the mantle of chairmanship of the meeting.
