… But Speaker says she would have allowed it
(Jamaica Gleaner) Speaker of the House of Representatives Juliet Holness on Tuesday said she had intended to allow Opposition Leader Mark Golding to move a censure motion against Prime Minister Andrew Holness. However, the pronouncement was in stark contrast to a decision made earlier by her deputy, Heroy Clarke, who blocked the motion, citing breach of parliamentary rules.
Golding, who sought to move the no-confidence motion against the prime minister, was not allowed to address the issue as the motion was ruled ‘out of order’ and said to be in breach of the sub judice rule which speaks to a matter that is under judicial consideration.
“I just came out for a moment and I noticed the Opposition walking out. I was coming back to tell them I had gone out because I was just completing my review so that they could go ahead and debate if they so choose,” said the Speaker, who returned to her chair after stepping out of the Chamber for a short while.
“However, even though they heard as much, they continued to walk out,” Speaker Holness said.
Golding told The Gleaner yesterday that the issue he was raising was a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct by the prime minister in failing to disclose that he was being investigated for illicit enrichment by the Integrity Commission (IC).
Clarke, who was presiding when Golding rose to introduce the motion, stopped the Opposition leader in his tracks, saying the motion breached the Standing Orders and ran counter to provisions in Erskine May Parliamentary Practice – the so-called bible of parliamentary practice – which indicates that matters before the court for consideration should not be debated under the sub judice rule.
However, the Opposition leader disagreed with Clarke’s ruling, saying his motion had “nothing to do with the content of the [IC investigation] report or any of the allegations made against him (the prime minister) in the report, so I don’t think that it was a matter that was affected by any legal proceedings that may or may not be pending”.
Prime Minister Holness filed documents in court on Monday seeking judicial review in relation to an investigation report by the IC into his statutory declarations.
The Gleaner has been reliably informed that, up to late last evening, the IC was not served with court documents relating to the judicial review.
Member of Parliament for Clarendon South East Pearnel Charles Jr rose on a point of order and challenged the attempt by Golding to introduce the motion.
“If it is that the member intends to travel down a road that is going to breach the Standing Orders, in raising matters that are sub judice, that cannot be accommodated in this House,” he charged.
However, Golding insisted that the substance of the motion was dealing with a violation of the ministerial code of conduct by the prime minister “in failing to disclose the fact that he was being investigated when that was a live issue in the public domain for well over a year”.
“They knew what they were going to do and young Pearnel Charles Jr stood up and said that the matter is sub judice and should not proceed and he (Clarke) ruled immediately and agreed with that without allowing me to say why I disagreed with that,” he explained.
“At that point, we just say if we are not going to be allowed to explain why we don’t think it is sub judice and why the motion is not improper, then we are not staying in the Parliament,” he added.
However, Charles said it was unfortunate that the Opposition had chosen to walk out on the issue.
“What I find disgusting is the discussions around integrity by persons who are willing to break down the integrity of this whole proceeding for their own pursuit of power,” Charles said.
Excerpt from Golding’s censure motion
BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House:
· Condemns the Prime Minister for not maintaining ethical standards of transparency and openness in Government.
· Censures the Prime Minister for his acts of covering up and concealment of the names, including his, of those members of the Cabinet and or Parliament of which he was and may still be aware, but has kept them in positions of influence in the Cabinet with the effect of further undermining public trust in the institutions of government.
· Declares that the actions of the Prime Minister have severely undermined his credibility and trustworthiness, and that he no longer enjoys the confidence of this House.
