Senator
Fred Mitchell
Opposition
Spokesman on Foreign Affairs,
Labour
& Immigration
Fox Hill Parade 13th February 2002
We
are gathered here this evening to try to dispense with a grand deception. The Prime Minister of The Bahamas Hubert
Ingraham through a National Referendum that he proposes to call on 27 February
is engaged in a grand political deception.
I wish us to go away this evening from this meeting assured and
convinced in ourselves that the only person Mr. Ingraham will deceive on 27
February is himself.
I
wish this evening to discuss the referendum issues so that you can understand
what you are being asked to do. I also
hope that when you have left us this evening, not only will your questions be
answered but that you will be convinced to vote no.
We of
the Progressive Liberal Party are asking the public to vote no. We believe that the Government is using the
referendum as a deception to mask the convincing allegations of corruption against
it. The quickest way therefore for the
people to deal with Mr. Ingraham and the FNM is to vote no on the 27 February.
We
are being deceived by the assertion by the Government and Mr. Ingraham that
this referendum will settle issues of gender equality. But the fact is that if you read Article 15
of the constitution, it is clear that the fundamental rights provisions apply
to all, regardless of sex or gender. If
that is the case, and we know that it is, one must ask: Why is the Prime
Minister dragging us through the expense of this general election?
Again
I say that it is a wicked and deceitful attempt to distract the country from
the allegations of corruption against the Minister of Education Dion Foulkes
and the Minister of Tourism Tommy Turnquest.
I am convinced that we in the PLP must keep our eyes on the ball. We need to keep hammering away at the
corruption and ineptitude of the Government.
Three
weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised that he would provide the conclusions
into the investigations of favouritism and vote buying by his Minister of
Education. We must call on the Minister
of Education and the Prime Minister before the referendum takes place to come
clean on all the facts. Otherwise, the
Minister of Education must resign and resign now.
The
same test and standard applies to the Minister of Tourism Tommy Turnquest. The scandal around him relating to a party
paid for by a political supporter on whose votes his depended to become
leader-elect of the FNM will not go away.
Minister Turnquest must resign and we must have, not a referendum, but a
General Election. Now, not tomorrow,
not next week, but now.
The
FNM came to office demanding accountability and an end to corruption. Since it came to office we have seen Brent
Symonette, FNM candidate for Montagu, resign because of corruption. But we have seen credible allegations of
corruption made against Frank Watson, the Deputy Prime Minister, on Bahamasair
and B.E.C. Mr. Watson has refused to
resign. There are allegations that the
Prime Minister was complicit in Mr. Watson’s actions and the Public Accounts
Committee concluded that the allegations were correct. Yet, the Prime Minister has not
resigned. Then there are the
allegations of corruption against Tommy Turnquest and Dion Foulkes, but they
have not resigned.
One
need only contrast that to the P.L.P.’s record. Every single allegation of corruption against the P.L.P. caused
Sir Lynden to investigate the complaints and from Simeon Bowe the Minister of
Works to Ervin Knowles the Minister of Agriculture, those PLP ministers did the
honourable thing and resigned.
Now
it is time for Hubert Ingraham, Frank Watson, Dion Foulkes and Tommy Turnquest
to do the honourable thing and resign.
They must dispense with this idle referendum and resign. We must go to the country and decide who is
to run the country, not be engaged in Mr. Ingraham’s grand deception designed
to fool people into losing sight of the allegations of corruption against the
Government.
Ladies
and gentlemen, it is important for you to turn up to your respective polling
stations and to vote ‘NO’. You must
vote ‘NO’ to all five questions.
I am
like the Honourable Arthur D. Hanna in that regard. I don’t need to know the facts.
I just need to know where to vote ‘NO’. But beyond that, it is important for us to send a message to the
Prime Minister that he cannot take us for granted. He can’t simply come to us with some preset agenda, and then try
in the space of three weeks to ram his agenda down our throats. This will not fly and will not do. We must vote ‘NO’.
First,
I would like to deal with the fatal, technical flaws in this process and then I
shall deal with one issue that arises with each of the questions which should
persuade you to vote no.
Following
my presentation, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
The
Prime Minister announced that he is going to provide $50,000 to opposition
parties so that they can have election agents at the polling stations. The question, ladies and gentlemen, is where
does he get the authority to provide $50,000 out of the public purse at his
will? The question is; if he is giving
$50,000 to opposition parties, how much is he giving to himself? And opposition parties do not need his
permission to have election agents. The
law says that just as it is in the General Election, political parties have the
right to have observers in this process.
If we do not have observers and agents, three from each political party
as it is during the General Election, then the process is suspect. We cannot put it past Mr. Ingraham and the
FNM to pack the ballot boxes with ‘yes’ votes.
They are so desperate to succeed.
We are entitled by law to be there.
But
the law is also very clear that monies to be charged on the Public Treasury can
only be so charged with the authority of the Parliament. Parliament has passed no law authorising any
specific expenditure on this referendum.
In order for Mr. Ingraham to lawfully expend monies on this referendum,
he must call Parliament back to authorise the expenditure.
Further,
one has to be concerned that Mr. Ingraham has not though this process and the
substance through. He has now dropped
question number six which if approved would have given a constitutional right
to a five year spousal permit and then the right to citizenship. When PLP Leader Perry Christie spoke about
this he said that it was a foolish idea to put this in the constitution since
the law already provides for it. The
Government, in its bloodymindedness, said they would proceed anyway. Then they tried to sneak on the Bahamian
people the fact that they dropped the question. The proclamation read by the Provost Marshal had only five questions. The questions we now have are these:
Does
the Government have the authority to drop any question that Parliament has
decided must be put to the people? Is
the Government acting lawfully in doing so?
Further,
the Prime Minister showed a ballot on television from his press conference of
last Sunday. The ballot does not include
the sixth question. Is that a lawful
ballot? And the proclamation spoke of
five questions to which we would be asked to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There was one proclamation, not five
separate proclamations. The question
then is: if there is one proclamation, how can you have five different yes or
no questions when the proclamation speaks only of question ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to all
five? Are you confused? You have one solution. You must vote ‘NO’. Whether it is one question or five
questions, you must vote ‘NO’.
We
must ask ourselves the wider question, if Mr. Ingraham has made all of these
mistakes in the process, how can we trust him to get the merits or the
substance correct? He has made mistake
after mistake in previous legislation.
How can he be trusted not have made mistakes in the constitution that we
cannot change except by a huge and expensive process? The answer is we cannot trust him to get it right. We must vote ‘NO’.
And
now I should like to turn to the amendments themselves. The question of rights to citizenship by the
spouses and children of Bahamian women:
Mr. Ingraham keeps saying that this will bring gender equality. I have shown by Article 15 men and women in
this are already equal in law. But the
question of citizenship is an issue that the Government wants to address, not
equality. First, Bahamians must
consider the implications of allowing someone to become a citizen of the
country. Once given, it cannot be taken
away unless it was obtained by fraud.
The constitution in Article 13 now gives the power to Parliament, a
Parliament in which the FNM has the vast majority of votes, the right to make
anyone a citizen that it wishes. Mr.
Ingraham therefore does not need to amend the constitution to do that or to
give rights to the children of Bahamian married women who are born
overseas. What some lawyers are
questioning is whether or not by amending the law the way they propose, the FNM
are not going to take away the existing right of single women who are Bahamian
to pass on their citizenship to their children. If that right were taken away, that would be a disaster.
Let
us move on to the so-called Independent Boundaries Commission. This Commission, it is proposed, will have
two appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and two by the Prime
Minister. The fifth person will be the
Parliamentary Commissioner who will be the appointment of the Prime
Minister. So how is this Commission
independent? The majority will still be
in the favour of the Prime Minister in power.
All that changes is there are no politicians from the Senate or the
House to be on it. But you know that if
the FNM appoints you, you are most likely to do what the FNM wants.
Further,
the new Commission does not have any new guidelines as to how the constituency
boundaries are to be drawn. And, what’s
worse when the boundaries are drawn, the public will have no input as to how
those boundaries affect them.
With
regard to entrenching the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner, the PLP is
concerned that this Parliamentary Commissioner will be accountable to no
one. You will give him security of
tenure and that means he cannot be removed, but he must be accountable to
someone.
The
same issue arises with the proposed Director of Public Prosecutions. The FNM and Mr. Ingraham are seeking to
deceive us into believing that the Director of Public Prosecutions will be an
independent person who will conduct all criminal prosecutions on his own. The criticism of the present system is that
the Attorney General because he is a politician will make political decisions
on prosecutions.
There
is some danger of that, but only if you have someone like Carl Bethel who
should not be in the job because he does not understand what an Attorney
General does. But an Attorney General
is accountable to Parliament. If he is
a Senator, he is subject to reappointment every five years at least and if he
is in the House, he must face an election at least once every five years. During his tenure as Attorney General, he
must answer questions put to him by the Opposition in Parliament.
Who
will the Director of Public Prosecutions be accountable to? He is to be given a position protected by
tenure. That means that he cannot be
fired unless he does something proven to be criminal and he will not be retired
until he reaches his 60th birthday.
One
need only see how the American so-called ‘Independent Prosecutor’ was engaged
in the persecution of former President William Clinton. Who was he accountable to? And so the question here is: Suppose you get
some wild-eyed prosecutor who is on a crusade of zealotry? Who will be able to stop him?
And
then there is the fact that the FNM is deceiving us about what the law is
really doing. Because they are saying
one thing - that is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will work without
political interference. But when you
read the Bill, it clearly shows that the Attorney General can give general or
specific directions on matters of public policy and the Director of Public
Prosecutions “shall act in accordance” with those instructions.
So
why are we amending the constitution when we are putting in place something
which the Attorney General already has the power to do? You must vote ‘NO’.
Similar
problems arise with the Teachers’ Service Commission. Now, this Commission will replace or is meant to replace the
present Public Service Commission. It
will be responsible for the personnel administration of teachers in the
Government system including the hiring and discipline of teachers.
The Teachers’ Service
Commission is one of the amendments to the constitution that does not require
the approval of the people for the change to be effective, although the vote is
required to entrench it in the constitution.
And it says something about the Prime Minister’s way of thinking that he
proceeds to bring into force something that at least in part requires the
approval of the people. That part of it is the entrenchment of the Commission
in the constitution so that it cannot be removed from the Constitution without
the permission of the voters.
Now
this is one of those Commissions that there is still broad agreement that it
should happen. The Commission is wanted
by teachers and both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister agree
that this is desirable. The Bahamas
Union of Teachers also supports this.
But the Teachers’ Service commission is already there. And I do not believe, I will go further and
say that this will not be repealed should the PLP form the next
Government. So again there is no need
to cause a referendum to be done for that purpose.
But
again Mr. Ingraham and the FNM are in this rush to a national referendum
without considering the full consequences of what he is doing. For example, teachers ought to be aware that
prior to the coming into force of the new Commission, they had a right to
appeal to a Supreme Court Justice and a panel of laymen if they felt that the
Public Service Commission had made a mistake in their discipline or
dismissal. That appeal to what is known
as the Public Service Board of Appeal will no longer apply to this new
Commission. So it can be argued that
the teachers will be in a worse position with the new commission because the
decisions of the new commission will be final.
Clearly, this needs to be reviewed.
And
now I turn to the question of extending the age of Judges. It is being proposed that the present age
for Justices of the Supreme Court will be extended from 67 to 72 and the
present retirement age of Justices of Appeal will be increased from 70 to
75. On the face of it this appears to
be fine because many people argue that a justice becomes more seasoned and
better at his job the older he gets.
But
teachers for example have to retire from the public service at the age of
60. They have to work for a full 30
years before they can get a pension from the Government. A Judge of the Supreme Court who now gets
83,000 dollars per year plus a housing allowance and car, gets to have his full
pension and entitlement and gratuity after only five years on the job. So after five years on the job you can
retire with a full pension and gratuity but the normal public servant must
retire at 60 and work 30 years in order to get a pension.
What
makes the Judge different from the ordinary public servant? The Government must
explain.
Further,
one has to consider whether or not it is proper for a Judge who is sitting on
the bench today to be given a benefit by the Government. It is better that this age increase - if it
applies at all - should be applied to new Judges coming on to the bench after
the proposed law comes into force.
There
is in law a rule called the rule against bias.
And that rule says that if you are in a position of bias actual or
likely, you are to remove yourself from a case. No man should be a judge in his own cause.
You
may remember that we objected to the Government of the FNM granting citizenship
to a former Chief Justice of this country while he was sitting on a case
involving the Government on one side and Sir Randol Fawkes on the other; and
the Methodist Church on one side and the Government on another. In each case, the Judge ruled for the
Government. His ruling came after he
got citizenship from the FNM. Now do
you think that those people who lost the case would have any faith in the
independence of those decisions?
In
the same vein, we argue that to allow existing judges the right to increase
their stay on the bench while sitting on the bench is the government offering
an advantage to an existing judge and that would compromise the integrity of a
judge. I do not therefore believe that
we ought to vote yes for that particular question.
And
so you see in each case, we have raised objections, not trivial objections but
serious objections to this process. We
cannot agree to this without further consideration and amendment.
The
Leader of the Opposition has said that he will cause a constitutional review
commission to be initiated and within a year the matters will be tested before
the public, if we can get the approval of the Houses of Parliament. The FNM should make a commitment today that
they will participate and agree to a constitutional review, a sensible one if
they end up on the Opposition benches.
The
Prime Minister is wrong. Nothing will
fundamentally change for this country or its reputation if we do not pass these
amendments. There is no overwhelming
demand or international importance or consequences to any of this. This is purely domestic politics. And he has made it political by seeking to
use the money from the Public Treasury to allow the FNM to fight its political
battle to win the General Election.
There
is another further aspect of this. When
one reads Article 54 that allows for the constitution to be amended, it reads
that the Bills to change the constitution cannot be passed by both Houses of
Parliament unless the voters have approved it.
It seems to suggest by this drafting method that the bills will have to
go back to the House and the Senate again before they can become law. If this is true, then they will die as Mr.
Ingraham proposes to dissolve Parliament as soon as the vote on the referendum
is clear. It may not come to that
because we are asking you to vote no.
But even if the answer from you is yes, the whole exercise may be futile
because once Mr. Ingraham dissolves the Parliament that’s the end of that. So we ask the question, Mr. Ingraham is a
lawyer and he is aware of all of these problems with this matter yet he
continues to push and push to do something which may be a wasted exercise.
I
come back to where I began by saying it is grand deception on the part of the
Prime Minister and we must not be fooled.
The
Roman Catholic Archbishop has said that if people do not understand the issues
then they should vote no. I believe
that is sound advice. The Anglican Archbishop has said that the matter should
be postponed for at least a year. That
too is sound advice. Bishop Sam Greene of the Bahamas Christian Council has
said that more time is needed to review these serious matters.
And
then there is the Seventh Day Adventist leader who regretted that there was not
a greater opportunity for more input from the public on these issues. Yet the Prime Minister in the face of all
of that goes barrelling right along.
The
Seventh Day Adventists, for example, would wish to have clarified the issue of
discrimination against them today in the work place where their members are
dismissed because for religious reasons they cannot work on Saturdays. No one asked them.
And
then when we come to the amendments on gender, the question is: when you put
gender in the definition on discrimination in article 26 will females then be
able to challenge the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds that women are not
allowed to be priests? Will the Masons
be challenged or the Gentleman’s Club be challenged on the grounds that women
are not allowed?
The
point here is that matters of religious doctrine may be involved. The point here is that in some areas of the
social life of the country, men and women must be treated differently. One example is the fact that there are
separate bathrooms for men and women.
Will providing separate facilities for female and male bathrooms mean
that you are discriminating against a woman or a man? Clearly that is not discrimination. That simply means that you have different facilities, separate
facilities not unequal facilities.
And
once again I say, whether we win or lose the referendum, it has nothing to do
with anything. There is nothing
fundamental in this. I believe that the
issue is corruption. I believe the
issue is Mr. Ingraham and his crooked and corrupt administration. I believe it is Mr. Ingraham having to
answer about how he sold this country down the drain so there is virtually
nothing left for our children. I
believe this is about his failing to stop foreigners from taking the jobs from
Bahamians. The referendum is just one
big smokescreen of deceit.
And
so we ask you to vote no for all the reasons above, and I hope you will join us
at the polls and vote: N.O. – No.
Thank
you very much.
- end -