The
question of constituency boundaries is a matter of increasing and pressing
importance to the country and to the ability of this country to have free
and fair elections.Those who wrote
and approved the constitution of The Bahamas left the legal role of delimitation
of boundaries to that of a committee of the House of Assembly with the
addition of a Supreme Court Justice.But
you will know Mr. President that it is the PLP’s public position that agrees
with the Government that there ought to be an independent electoral commission,
that is, one that does not have politicians deciding the boundaries.
You
will also know that the PLP’s present position is that with the existing
system it intends to use very opportunity to publicize the proposals of
the Government on constituency boundaries and make its own proposals known
in order that we might have a free and fair election.This
request for a select committee of this place is an attempt to further that
process.
Indeed
on the Constituencies Commission itself the PLP’s representative on the
Commission has asked that the hearings of the Commission be open to the
public, that all of its proposals be subject to comment by the public at
large and that extra parliamentary political parties ought to get an opportunity
to comment upon any boundary changes.Further
that all of these views ought to be incorporated into any final recommendations
made by the Constituencies Commission to the Governor General on the delimitation
of boundaries.So far the majority
on the Commission has refused to agree with the PLP’s proposals.
In
my intervention seeking to persuade this House of the need for this select
committee, I intend to touch on the following: the historical context or
background on the delimitation of boundaries; the law with regard to constituency
boundaries; the proposals for changes to existing boundaries; the objections
to those changes; the standing of the members of the Commission; and finally
what the PLP’s view is about the boundaries and how they ought to change
if at all.
Mister
President the starting point in this intervention is the historical context.In
1965, the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) a pressure group
within the Progressive Liberal Party determined that a public strategy
needed to be designed to draw attention to the move by the United Bahamian
Party to table a draft boundaries order pursuant to the provisions of the
constitution.The law in the then
constitution of 1964 was the same as the law is today, and the draft boundaries
order had to be approved by the House of Assembly.
You
will no doubt recall Mr. President, the bitter disappointment of the Progressive
Liberal Party in 1962 when the PLP won the popular vote but lost the General
Election.And this was put largely
down to the fact that the seats in the Out Islands as we then knew them
outnumbered the seats in New Providence.The
bulk of the population of the country lived in this island as they still
do today. Yet the seats in the islands outnumbered the seats in New Providence.
The
Draft Boundaries order came to be debated on 27 Aril 1965. This is a date
in history known in The Bahamas as Black Tuesday and said to have been
coined by Sir Arthur Foulkes who took it from the day of the Wall Street
crash in 1929 that was also known as Black Tuesday.
The
PLP led a public demonstration outside the House and its party leaders
led a fierce opposition to the draft boundaries order inside the House.At
about midday, the Leader of the Opposition said that the UBP majority was
obviously not to be persuaded, and with that the window of the eastern
top of the House of Assembly was opened, Sir Lynden Pindling then grabbed
the Speaker’s mace and sent it crashing down to the floor below.The
mace was never found, and Arthur Hanna says some fellows later brought
its pieces to him and they buried it somewhere from which place we cannot
recover it.
Then
the leaders of the PLP led a march down to the Southern Recreation Ground.Its
leaders were conscious of the fact that the Burma Road riots were touched
off by the simple breaking of a Coke bottle from a truck parked on Bay
Street and they were determined that an incident of that kind would not
be allowed to happen again.I believe
it is true to say that 1965 was the last time that the riot act was read
in the country by then Magistrate John Bailey.
And
so we have been fighting for well into four decades about how to delineate
boundaries of constituencies in this country.In
fact just before the 1992 General Election, the Free National Movement
had as one of its main objections to the process the drawing of constituency
boundaries.On a campaign trip with
the then member for Montagu, Orville Turnquest, he told me that the FNM
was satisfied with the boundaries exercise for that election, because they
were satisfied that the boundaries were drawn more or less equitably. They
fought the 1992 election and won the election.To
this day some of the supporters of the PLP believe that the election was
lost in part because the PLP bent over backwards to accommodate the FNM's
objections to the constituency boundaries.
The
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham included in the Manifesto of the Free National
Movement in 1992, the platform on which it fought its first winning election,
that there would be an independent Electoral Commission fashioned after
the Commission in Jamaica and there is one in Guyana.That
has yet to come, and probably will not come before this election because
there will be no agreement on this side to deal with any constitutional
reform at this late stage in the term of the FNM. The FNM has in fact run
out of any mandate that it had to make any major policy changes for this
country.It really should call an
election now.
I
say that Mr. President because we are yet again in the country faced with
scandal, charge and counter charge and this time from within the very bowels
of the governing party.There can
be no objection that this is the PLP merely spoiling for a fight.You
have two former Cabinet ministers - and we are told a third is about to
enter the fray - who have accused the FNM and members of the Cabinet of
corrupt acts.In these circumstances
there must be a General Election and that election should be held now and
on the existing boundaries.The House
ought to be dissolved within the week.
In
1966, Mr. President, Colin Hughes who wrote Race and Politics in The Bahamas,
the seminal work on the history of politics in The Bahamas up to 1977,
wrote that the Premier of the country Sir Roland Symonette went to the
Governor at the time Sir Ralph Gray and asked him to dissolve the Parliament
and call elections for 10 January 1967.In
a speech to the nation by the Governor announcing that he had acceded to
the Premier’s request, he told the nation that that in the circumstances
of charges and counter charges of corruption against the Government in
both the local media and abroad, he did not feel that the Government had
the mandate to continue.In the circumstances,
Sir Roland felt that he needed a fresh mandate and so the election had
to be called.
This
same approach ought to have happened in 1984 with regard to the Pindling
Government and it did not happen.Now
the present Prime Minister who spent so much time excoriating the former
Prime Minister about his failure to call a General Election in the face
of the Commission of Inquiry’s report of 1984 is refusing to go to the
country.Instead he proposes to rule
on and on as if nothing has ever happened. This is wrong and he knows better.
He
must go and go now.
So
Mister President we have been fighting over the question of boundaries
of constituencies for over 40 years.And
the Prime Minister in 1997 announced that he was reducing the number of
constituencies from 49 as they then were to 40.He
eliminated nine seats.The PLP did
not oppose any of those reductions. But I did.I
thought that the reduction of Fox Hill to its existing boundaries was most
unfair to the people of Fox Hill.I
also complained then that the removal at the last minute of the polling
division between Cockburn Street on the east and Adderley Street on the
west, the original Congo Town of Fox Hill, was an egregious act of personal
spite by the Prime Minister when he heard that I was the candidate for
the constituency.
I
wish in that regard to quote an article written by George Mackey, the former
Member of Parliament for Fox Hill in his article in The Tribune on Saturday
29 September and I quote: “Prior to the 1997 General Election, the area
between Cockburn Street and Adderley Street, bordered by Bernard Road on
the south and Step Street on the north was taken out of the Fox Hill constituency
and placed in Montagu.The powers
that be shamelessly admitted at the time, that this action was taken deliberately
to prevent Mr. Fred Mitchell from winning the seat.The
600 voters there were placed in Montagu where they were not needed and
were replaced by others from Sea Breeze and some areas on the south side
of Prince Charles Drive which were then made a part of the Fox Hill constituency.”
Mister
President, the present proposal by the Free National Movement majority
on the Commission will extend that rape of the Fox Hill area even further
by taking another two polling divisions out of what most people call Fox
Hill and placing hem in Montagu.All
that area that includes St. Anselm’s Church, the Fox Hill Post Office and
Library and the Sandilands Primary School is to be taken out of the Fox
Hill constituency and put into Montagu.On
the other end, the polling division number five from Montagu which stretches
into Culbert's Hill Road right smack into Camperdown and Winton will be
added to the constituency.
I
again return to George Mackey: “In the current proposed new changes to
the Fox Hill constituency, the Fox Hill Parade just barely remains in the
same, as it will now form part of the northern boundary.Even
Sandilands School caused to be founded for the education of the children
of former slaves in Fox Hill, will now be located in the Montagu Constituency,
with Bernard Road now dividing the two constituencies.How
ridiculous!”Ridiculous indeed!
The
same separation of the community has been done in the constituency of Holy
Cross, where the incumbent has lost his popularity and so the area that
was used to defeat me in Fox Hill has now been removed once again to Holy
Cross and two more polling divisions that were FNM strongholds moved into
the constituency, with two PLP strongholds moved out, to ensure that Carl
Bethel will win. Nassau Village as a community is being separated and destroyed.
In
fact some people in the Oakes Field area complain that they have been shifted
about from one constituency from one election to the next, so that many
people have no idea what constituency they are resident.
In
this morning’s Nassau Guardian, Koed Smith who is the insurgent candidate
for the Mt. Moriah Constituency objected to the changes in that constituency
and I quote: “ Smith said that he was concerned that the FNM majority on
the Commission suggested that polling divisions three and five of the Delaporte
Constituency in the Oakes Field community be added to Mt. Moriah; while
Polling Divisions one and 11 of Mt. Moriah, formed out of Yellow Elder
Gardens one and two are eliminated and placed into Bain Town.
“
Mr. Smith said: ‘ I strongly contend that Minister Turnquest, in his privileged
and advantaged position, has made the suggestion for these changes in his
effort to simply cut out of his constituency a significant portion of persons
who have every right and are most qualified to mark his performance over
the past nine years. What is interesting is that the people of Yellow Elder
Gardens, inclusive of past FNM supporters of Minister Turnquest in his
bid to be their representative again. The primary reason is that he has
been absent from the constituency, not given them proper representation
and is indifferent to their views or plight as constituents.”
Now
the interesting thing about this Mister President is that both the PLP
and the FNM agree that each constituency must be more or less 4000 voters.And
the excuse given by the Majority in their statement is that in the Fox
Hill area the numbers are down so they have to add polling divisions.But
you ask yourself the question: if it’s only about adding numbers, why choose
a polling division that just happened to have voted 244 for the FNM and
75 for the PLP in the 1997 election?Why
not keep the existing polling divisions where the FNM was defeated by the
PLP and also add the polling division taken out of the constituency in
1997 again where the PLP defeated the FNM?And
the reasons are compelling for using the PLP’s proposals; the neighborhood
of Fox Hill will stay in one piece.
As
it stands, what the Prime Minister proposes to do will be a disincentive
to anyone in that area of Fox Hill to register to vote or in fact if they
register, it will be a disincentive to vote at all.Their
vote will mean nothing to them because clearly, in their experience with
the present representative for the FNM William Allen, they have received
no representation at all.The reason
is that he does not need their votes to get elected so he can safely ignore
them. This must not be allowed to stand.
What
then is the law on this issue Mr. President?The
law on the issue of the delimitation of Constituency Boundaries can be
found in Articles 68, 69 and 70 of the Constitution. Article 68 divides
The Bahamas into a minimum of 38 constituencies and says that by reason
of an Order pursuant to article 70 the Governor General may increase the
number of constituencies.It also
affirms what has been the position in the country since 1967, that there
can only be one member for each constituency.
Article
69 constitutes the Commission as follows: The Speaker is the Chair; a Justice
of the Supreme Court is there on the recommendation of the Chief Justice.That
person is Ricardo Marques.Then there
are two members appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation
of the Prime Minister.They happen
to be Dion Foulkes and Tommy Turnquest, the Deputy Leader designate and
Leader designate of the FNM.The
other member of the Commission is appointed on the recommendation of the
Leader of the Opposition.That member
is Bradley Roberts.
The
Government therefore has a built-in majority. So when Dion Foulkes objects
to the statements of Bradley Roberts in these proposals on the grounds
that they are just proposals, it is a bit disingenuous at the every least
and politically dishonest at best.The
fact is they have a built-in majority and what they say goes. Judging from
the last election, they do what they want without regard to what the minority
has to say.
The
question of the number of constituencies became an issue in the run up
to the 1992 General Election.The
FNM thought that there were too many seats in the country for its size.Comparisons
were made to Jamaica and Trinidad and Barbados. In accordance with their
campaign promise they reduced the number of seats as I have already said
for the 1997 election.
But
there is a difference of opinion between the FNM and the PLP on the question
of the number of constituencies.The
FNM said that since they brought into being Local Government there was
no longer the need for the high number of seats in the Family Islands.They
used that in particular to justify the seat Mayaguana, Inagua, Acklins,
Crooked Island and Long Cay; the so-called MICAL seat.The
islands are far apart and travel is difficult and expensive.But
the seat has very few votes.I think
that such a seat cannot be justified unless each candidate is given certain
government support in order to level the playing field.Otherwise
the FNM or the incumbent candidate always has the advantage.
Further,
the seat is just too geographically far apart for any representative to
sensibly represent those people.
What
the PLP says is that electors have to be close to the elected, and the
PLP's view is that this meant that there ought to be smaller constituencies
so that the representatives can have closer contact with the electors.But
we now say that the number of constituencies is an issue that should be
determined by an Independent Electoral Commission, taking into account
the views of all the people of The Bahamas including the political parties.
Now
the directions to the Commission as to how they ought to go about doing
their job are not very specific.They
can be found in article 70 and it is here that the PLP has had a disagreement
over time with the United Bahamian Party at first and its successor the
Free National Movement.That difference
of opinion continues today and is at the very heart of the dispute between
the sides as we begin to face off in this next General Election.
Article
70 (2) says that there are two considerations in carrying out the review
of constituency boundaries.First,
the Commission shall be guided by the general consideration that the number
of voters entitled to vote for the purposes of electing every member of
the House shall so far as is reasonably practicable, be the same.Secondly
it says that they ought to take account of special considerations such
as the needs of sparsely populated areas, the practicality of elected members
maintaining contact with electors in such areas, size, physical features,
natural boundaries and geographical isolation.
Now
again, the writers of the constitution did not write the paragraph disjunctively,
they wrote conjunctively but it has always been interpreted disjunctively.That
means that the first part of the paragraph deals mainly with New Providence
or islands where the populations are large and there is one land mass like
Grand Bahama or New Providence. But
the second half was put in for the Family Islands.And
it is that second half that I submit is offended when you have a seat like
MICAL.
I think however that it applies also to New Providence and certainly to the Fox Hill constituency as the present Government proposes.When you look at the figures published by the FNM majority on the Commission and compare them to the census figures, it is clear that there are at least two thousand more voters to be found in the constituency.So there is absolutely no reason given the FNM's position that there must 4000 electors per constituency that there ought to be changes to the existing Fox Hill boundaries. And I now wish to lay on the table those figures showing the registrations of 18 September 2001 compared to the census figures supplied by the Department of Statistics
But
the PLP has added another dimension to its presentation on these issues.One
is that communities insofar as it is practicable ought to be kept together
in drawing up the boundaries.We
think that this ought to apply to Centreville.It
ought to apply to a reconfigured St. Margaret’s, which should really link
the subdivisions of Blair and Shirley Heights together with a bridge over
the top of what used to be Ann's Town - the Kemp Road /St James area.Remember
Mister President that when land was sold in Blair and in the top half of
the old Centreville Subdivision, Shirley Heights, Murphyville, Buen Retiro
and Shirley Slope, it was a deliberate policy to sell land only to white
Bahamians. That ethnic distinction largely remains today.
And
so those polling divisions would naturally fall together.But
what is particularly interesting about the configurations of the majority
is that they have reinforced Mr. Ingraham's apparent view that wherever
there is a strong group of white Bahamians voters, the PLP has no opportunity
to fight for their votes.So it is
a kind of invidious backhand racism on his part saying to himself that
he can always defeat the black votes in a constituency where the FNM and
the PLP must fight more or less equally for votes by throwing in a white
enclave, believing and counting on his belief that white Bahamians will
never vote for the PLP.It is a racist
view by Mr. Ingraham.
But
even further it is a deliberate political manipulation of the process;
direct gerrymandering of the Centreville and Shirlea seats to deny Pierre
Dupuch his FNM nemesis a seat in the House of Assembly while at the same
time trying to create a seemingly impossible obstacle over which the Leader
of the Opposition has to climb.It
is political crookedness of the first order.
Perhaps
this is an appropriate place to identify the political actors in this matter.
The Constitution provides the answers in Articles 69 and 70.First
the members of the Commission are there. I have already identified them.But
the other principle actor is the Prime Minister who has a role to play
in laying the draft boundaries order before the House of Assembly.He
can also modify the draft order as well.
And
I know of his role personally because he came to me last week at the straw
market and told me in the face that he was trying to help me by configuring
the constituency of Fox Hill the way he now proposes.I
told him if what he is trying to do is to help me then I don’t know what
help is.
Now
Mr. President, in Article 70 (2), the language of the constitution says
that the Commission shall be guided by the general consideration that the
number of voters entitled to vote for the purposes of electing every member
of the House of Assembly shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be
the same.The emphasis here is on
the phrase “the number of voters entitled to vote”. We take the same position
Sir Lynden Pindling and his members took in 1965 and that is the boundaries
must be drawn based on all those who are entitled to vote, that is, those
who are Bahamian and over 18 and of sound mind.The
census of 2000 has made available what those numbers are.And
we say that the Government has not made exhaustive efforts to ensure that
the registration takes place.They
are still using 1960s methods to register a population that is busier than
ever. We need to move to automatic registration at 18 years of age.We
need mobile voter registration.And
the Government has deliberately failed to register Bahamians because the
under registration helps their cause by demonstrating that there is voter
apathy in the country.
This
does not surprise us since in 1967 when their predecessors in title the
United Bahamian Party went to the country, there 5000 less voters on the
rolls than in November 1962 at the previous election, according to Colin
Hughes.
I
would like to lay on the table the figures of those who are registered
to vote as of 18 September 2001 and those who are eligible according to
the census of 2000.
Now
Article 70(1) says Mr. President that at intervals of five years, the boundaries
ought to be reviewed and a report submitted to the Governor General.You
will remember that the Governor General in this case is the father of one
of the members of the Commission but it seems the objection to that will
be moot since the Governor General is going to demit office on 31st
October 2001.
And
may I say here that it is the view amongst PLP circles that the present
Prime Minister while he has the legal authority to recommend to her Majesty
the appointment of another Governor General that appointment should be
left to his successor in office.His
mandate is at an end and with the country divided as it is over his stewardship
he no longer has the moral authority to appoint a Governor General and
so an acting Governor General ought to be put in place until such time
as a new administration has been elected and that new Prime Minister and
his Cabinet ought to be responsible for choosing the new Governor General.
The
last register of voters came into effect in February 1997 and would have
expired in February 2002.But the
Prime Minister in an attempt to force people to register arbitrarily decided
to revoke the register of 1997 and bring into force a new register as of
1 October 2001.Many people got the
wrong impression that this meant that registration stopped on 30 September.It
did not and does not stop even after a dissolution of Parliament.Except
that those who did not get registered on the new register if the man calls
an election now and they are not on the new register they will not be able
to vote.
The
Prime Minister in his address to the nation two nights ago said that he
was happy at the number of people who had registered.Up
to that time the figure was some 110,000 people. The Parliamentary Commissioner
says that there are another 30,000 people to be registered in the country.
But what the census figures show, if they are to be believed, is that the
Government has done a poor job at getting people registered.And
the hardest job of all is getting new voters on the rolls who do not think
that there is anything to get registered for.They
very often think that Peter is no better than Paul.But
we must get them registered.And
we are still using the methods of the 1950s to get people registered in
2001.This is not a simple exercise.It
is an appointment that you have to make and people are busy.So
I think that the Parliamentary Commissioner must take mobile vans into
the areas and get the people registered in that way.There
is no other choice.
Mister
President, once the Commission has reported - and the majority has said
in its press release that they intend for the Commission to finish its
work on 31 October 2001, they shall submit a single report to the Governor
General either saying that there should be no change or recommending certain
changes.The Governor General shall
then cause the report to be laid before the House of Assembly.
Once
that is done, the Prime Minister then causes a draft boundaries order to
be laid before Parliament in the form of the draft report to the Governor
General and he may make certain modifications if he chooses.So
ultimately, this is an exercise of the Prime Minister.And
I shall come back to his role in this and why the present exercise cannot
be trusted.The Prime Minister also
has the responsibility to lay before the House the reasons for the changes
in the constituency boundaries.It
is then for the House to say yea or nay to the changes in the boundaries.Once
they are approved and come into force they have the force of law, that
is, the boundaries are changed as of the new General Election.
But
the clear consequence of that is that the people in the existing constituency
boundaries who are moved into new constituencies are immediately abandoned
by their incumbent representative because he has new fish to fry. That
is what Koed Smith; the PLP’s candidate in Mt. Moriah, was speaking about
in his objection to the changes.
Dr.
Bernard Nottage, the Member for Kennedy, in announcing his candidates on
Sunday 30 September, made the observation that there is no right of appeal
from the order of the Constituencies Commission. So if a corrupt Government
decides to gerrymander boundaries then there is very little that we can
do.
Article
70(9) does say however that Parliament may by law provide for an appeal
to the Supreme Court against a statement or recommendation submitted by
the Commission.Parliament has so
far refused to do so.
But
I say to Dr. Nottage and others that the work of the Commission can in
my view be challenged by Judicial Review.Judicial
Review is a procedure that allows the courts to look at the behavior of
a particular authority that has administrative or quasi- judicial powers.The
Court can decide whether or not that body exercised its discretion properly.
A
challenge was brought to the findings of the Commission in 1987 but that
was still born on the grounds that the person whobrought
the application did not have sufficient standing in the matter.Of
course the judge in the case was former Chief Justice Joaquim Gonsalves
Sabola who had his own peculiar view of justice. And the result is likely
to be different today.
What
the Commission has to be concerned about is that it does not fetter its
discretion.In other words, it cannot
decide in advance what its position should be.The
Commission ought to look at the facts objectively and reasonably.The
courts say that the administrative authority has the responsibility and
duty to act fairly.It cannot take
into consideration matters that are irrelevant.In
my view acting fairly must mean acting with objectivity.Given
those guidelines where there are cases of gerrymandering, these must be
clear cases that ought to be set aside by the courts.
But
having said that, Parliament should pass right away a law which establishes
the criteria for challenging the decisions of the Commission.And
further, the Constituencies Commission ought to allow for extra Parliamentary
parties to have their ideas viewed by the Commission.Further,
there ought to be the right generally for the public to have a look at
the proposals and comment upon them before the final decision is made by
the Commission.All of this has been
proposed by the PLP’s representative on the Commission but the majority
refuses to accept that view.
The
question now also arises in addition to the usual politicking and gerrymandering
whether or not the whole process can be trusted having regard to the allegations
of corruption made against the two members of the majority on the Constituencies
Commission. The former Attorney General Tennyson Wells and the former Minister
of Housing Algernon Allen have both made specific allegations against the
two members of the majority and the Prime Minister and his Cabinet generally
of corrupt acts during their election for the leadership of the FNM.
In
the House of Assembly on Wednesday 26 September, the former Attorney General
made three sets of allegations of corrupt practices.He
said that contracts for construction works were given out to delegates
at the special convention to elect the Leader designate and Deputy leader
designate of the FNM.He also said
that there were scholarships given out at a time that was close to the
special convention to the children of delegates to the convention.He
also said that Crown land was given out to at least one delegate of the
special convention.
Understandably,
the Prime Minister who is responsible for lands was incensed.He
called his former Attorney General daft.He
made other personal remarks that surely bordered on being unparliamentary,
but were at the very least irrelevant to the charges.
The
Minister of Education responded to the allegations against him by saying
that the matters were a co-incidence in some cases.And
in the other case, he admitted that yes there were contracts but so what.An
FNM deserves a chance. The Minister of Tourism was accused of signing off
on a contract for a man who influenced the delegate selection at the special
convention when he was Minister of Works, even though this was opposed
by his professional staff. And then further works were given by the Ministry
of Education.
With respect to the allegations and the denials by the persons concerned, the PLP’s position is quite clear.There is a need for a public inquiry. Regardless of what the fourth estate has been trying to sell us, the Prime Minister has disproved nothing that Mr. Wells said.He has only confirmed our worst fears about what Mr. Wells said.Similarly the Minister of Education has not quashed nor disproved a single allegation made by Mr. Wells. He has only confirmed that what Mr. Wells said was true.His only quarrel is that Mr. Wells has misinterpreted his intent.And it is interesting that in the history of this country there has not been one political transition without a Commission of Inquiry following the transition.
The
PLP had an inquiry following the UBP's loss.The
FNM had an inquiry following the PLP’s loss.And
we shall certainly be calling for an inquiry if the PLP wins the next Government.
The
Prime Minister, the Ministers of Tourism and Education cannot be judge
and jury for themselves.Algernon
Allen and Tennyson Wells made such specific and pointed allegations and
charges that a mere refutation is not enough.
Mr.
Wells made the specific allegation that in at least two cases one a contractor
in Acklins and another in Grand Bahama, the persons concerned who got the
contracts for construction works knew nothing about construction and had
to sub-contract the work out.There
must be a public inquiry as to what the worth of the actual contract was.The
persons themselves must be questioned under oath as to why those contracts
were granted and for what purpose.The
Minister and the Prime Minister have a duty to discharge an evidential
burden on the improbability of co-incidence - how is a contract given to
a delegate to the special convention just before or just after the vote
justified as being a matter of co-incidence? This is all the more so when
the person awarding the contract is a direct beneficiary of the vote of
the delegate.Even if the delegate
voted for someone else, the appearance smells of a rat.Mr.
Wells said that it insults the intelligence of right thinking people to
be asked to accept that.
And
I wish to say that I understand that Mr. Wells is promising more to come.
In fact the word around in the dissident circles is that there is proof
that a party was paid for by Sun International for the Minister of Tourism
as a victory party.There is also
talk that Mr. Wells has the originals of contracts and plans to table them.There
being some suggestion that those contracts tabled in the House of Assembly
may have been doctored. So it might be an appropriate time to shoot a warning
across the bow to the other side that if there is anything wrong with any
of that data they had better correct it now.
One
thinks particularly of the allegation that in order to get around the $50,000
limit for contracts that had to be approved by the Cabinet, according to
Mr. Wells, the Minister granted two contracts under the limit to the same
person on the same day.
Then
of course I have to ask the question to my putative opponent the incumbent
for the Fox Hill constituency who has a travel agency whether or not she
can confirm that her travel agency received a $17,000 cheque for travel
charges by the Ministry of Education.I
would wish that point answered.I
would find the answer to this question very interesting in light of all
of the attention now being paid to gerrymandering the boundaries in Fox
Hill.And I remind all Members of
Parliament and Senators of the prohibition on pain of expulsion from the
Parliament of engaging in contracts with the Government without at first
declaring those contracts to the respective Houses of Parliament and getting
the permission of that House to engage in the contract with the Government.
We
come again now to the other actor in this matter, the Prime Minister who
in the most crude and impolitic fashion attacked one Mohammed Harajchi
at a public gathering of straw vendors.His
comment was clear a violation of the rules on sub judice.But
that is a rule that I think is observed as much in the breach as anything
else but what I thought was interesting is the fact that Mr. Ingraham confirmed
Mr. Harajchi’s entire argument.The
owner of Suisse Security Bank & Trust had all along been saying that
it was not the Central Bank Governor who closed down the bank.The
Prime Minister confirmed in his statement that he and his colleagues presumably
closed the bank.So what does that
do to the confidence of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) who had us pass all these laws at gunpoint last year including a
new Central Bank Act?The Act was
supposed to vest complete autonomy in the Central Bank.The
Act came into force on 1 January 2001.The
bank was closed in March, so if the Prime Minister determined that the
bank's owner was not a fit and proper person to hold a bank license what
was the Central Bank Governor doing?
But
the matter is relevant in that it is an example of a pattern of behavior
on the part of the Prime Minister where he interferes behind the scenes
in matters which he has to legal authority to interfere with.So
the Constituencies Commission process is one of those that must be seen
under the cloud of the Prime Minister.He
is the puppet master pulling the strings of the two puppets who sit on
the Constituencies Commission.
What
the allegations of both Mr. Wells and Mr. Allen say and the revelations
of Bradley Roberts reveal is that these are people that will go to any
lengths to get what they want, including defeating the very democratic
process.In these circumstances,
it is not possible to have free and fair elections.It
is clear that if corruption exists at a party level, corruption is more
likely when the stakes are higher in a General Election.
The
whole process of the Constituencies Commission then is like to be tainted
by these allegations of corruption.As
I said the whole Government is tainted by these allegations of corruption
and in the circumstances the only thing for this Prime Minister to do is
to dissolve this Parliament now and go to the country.
Golden
Gates is to be destroyed as a constituency because Shane Gibson, the PLP’s
nominee dared to oppose the maximum leader of the FNM.Polling
divisions are moved out of Bain town in order to shore up a politically
ailing Zhivargo Laing.
Carmichael
is not Carmichael anymore. In the Family Islands, the only change that
is made is in the Pineridge constituency where a weakened C.A. Smith needs
the help of a polling division of hard core FNMs from the Lucaya constituency.
There
ought to be some rules in place to prevent this kind of abuse. And the
Prime Minister if he should do anything in these his last days; it should
be to reform this process of political crookedness which the exercise portrays.
Each
voter has a right to be able to sanction the representative who served
that voter if the representative has not performed properly.What
the exercise by the FNM majority on the Commission is designed to do is
to defeat that right of a voter to sanction a bad MP simply by putting
that MP before a completely new group of people.This
is most unfair.
I
think that this Select Committee can be given a limited time to come back
with a report and that report ought to be submitted to the Government and
to the Constituencies Commission. It ought to recommend what are appropriate
changes with a more dispassionate view.
It
ought to seek to prescribe what the behavior of the various actors ought
be and the legal roles.There ought
to be public hearings.That is the
way to help the process along. And the Select Committee ought to report
before 22 October 2001 to this body.
I
can think of no better way to end this intervention than to remind the
majority in this place of the words of the Prime Minister in 1992 when
he was the Leader of the Opposition.He
spoke on 11 May in the House and said the following:
“...It
seems to me that The Bahamas ought to now consider very seriously following
suit after many other Commonwealth countries in the world and put the whole
question of a Constituencies Commission in the hands of persons who are
not Members of Parliament, firstly.Make
Members of Parliament an excluded group who are disqualified from serving
on a Constituencies Commission… It is our considered view and judgment
that boundary changes ought to be taken out of the hands of a Constituency
Commission which has a majority of Government members on it.And
it does not matter whether that government is the FNM or the PLP, the principle
remains the same. Mr. Speaker, it is an authority, in terms of politicians
cutting the boundaries, which I wouldn’t wish to have for my country and
I wouldn’t wish to see in the hands of my party’s government after the
next election either.The temptation
to have more of the same is too great because the first thing the FNM would
want to do is get even with the PLP for what they did this time.And
we will have this thing going on and on, everybody trying to get even with
the next one.Mr. Speaker, I would
like to have the authority for that taken out of the hands of the political
parties.
“Mr. Speaker, all human beings have a temptation to pay back, that’s a natural human temptation.And our job, Mr. Speaker, as men in public life is to suppress such base instinct of mankind and take all steps to guard against it so fairness prevails.So that men don’t operate on impetuousness, on hate and spite.”
Well
said oh great one.If you say what
you mean and mean what you say.Do
it now.
I
so move Mr. President.