The Tribune

By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

FORMER House Speaker Halson Moultrie believes Attorney General Ryan Pinder is indirectly trying to overturn his 2021 decision on the Public Accounts Committee.

He said Senator Pinder is incorrect in his position on the limits of who the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) can summon and what it can investigate, adding that he is “overreaching”. Mr Moultrie said the PAC has “unfettered” investigatory powers.

However, Mr Pinder thinks otherwise.

“As far as I know, the rules of the House have not been amended to read anything more than what was in my letter. Mr Moultrie should appreciate the Speaker doesn’t have unilateral authority to change the rules of the House,” Mr Pinder told The Tribune yesterday.

“I have done nothing of the sort. I merely requested the opposition abide by the rules that they seem always to demand the government to abide by.

“But this is frankly a lot about nothing - comply with the rules and procedure that is established is the request, nothing more, and Pintard and Moultrie know better - or they should. If they don’t then that raises serious questions about their ability to lead.”

In 2021, Mr Moultrie overturned a controversial ruling that his predecessor had made that restricted the powers of the PAC.

Former Speaker Dr Kendal Major ruled in 2015 that the PAC could only examine documents that have been tabled in Parliament and could only send for persons, papers or records if a parliamentary resolution permits it to do so.

The committee has grabbed headlines this week after Free National Movement leader Michael Pintard expressed the opposition’s outrage over Mr Pinder’s attempt to “handcuff” and “muzzle” the PAC.

The party leader expressed concern that Permanent Secretary Luther Smith was a “no show” before the PAC on Tuesday. He said Mr Smith’s non-appearance was on the instructions of Mr Pinder, adding that the committee will review the matter and soon advise what next steps it will take.

A February 21 letter Mr Pinder wrote to the PAC chairman, sent in care of the House of Assembly’s clerk, said the PAC “made a general request” which went beyond the powers granted to the committee by the House of Assembly’s rules, specifically section 17, and therefore the request by the chairman of the PAC was denied.

But Mr Moultrie refuted the Attorney General’s claim in his letter.

“First of all, let me say that is absolutely incorrect and the AG ought to know better than to suggest to the Bahamian people by citing only portions of that rule - he didn't cite the entire rule. He cited the portion that was favourable to his decision and he knows better than to proceed as an attorney that is called before the Bar,” Mr Moultrie said.

“It should be full and frank disclosure whenever any matter comes before a judge or an attorney with respect to the law. That provision provides the Public Accounts Committee with unfettered investigatory powers to investigate the prime minister, any minister of the government, any permanent secretary, any director of the government and even any private contractor who may have business with the government,” the former Nassau Village MP said.

According to Mr Pinder’s letter, Section 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the House of Assembly states that the PAC has the duty to examine and report on the accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament to meet public expenditure; other reports, accounts or financial statements of ministries, departments and public corporations before the House as the committee may see fit; such other accounts as may be referred to the committee by the House or any other law; or the report of the auditor general.

When contacted on Tuesday night about Mr Pintard’s argument, Mr Pinder said: “The scope of the request was not compliant with the parliamentary rules governing the PAC.”

Mr Pinder said he was also advised that Mr Smith was only made aware of the request to appear before the committee on Monday.

While criticising the attorney general this week, Mr Pintard added that Senator Pinder has no authority over the legislature and the PAC.

Mr Moultrie echoed similar sentiments.

“I believe any attempt first of all by the attorney general to interfere with the proceedings of the legislative branch, in particular, the Public Accounts Committee, is overreaching on the part of the attorney general. He has no jurisdiction within the legislative branch ….Whenever the legislative branch invites any member of the public service -members of Parliament, including ministers and the prime minister —if they refuse to attend the Public Accounts Committee has the power to summon any individual before the Public Accounts Committee, including the attorney general to bring evidence and to give evidence and produce documents to satisfy the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee with respect to any accounts, with respect to the assets of the Bahamian people.”

Mr Moultrie added: “And any matter that relates to transparency and accountability, the accountability and stewardship of the executive branch of the government is within the remit of the Public Accounts Committee’s authority and to suggest otherwise is absurd. What I believe is happening is the attorney general is in an indirect way, trying to overturn the decision of the Speaker, the former Speaker, myself, decision with respect to the Public Accounts Committee.”

The former Nassau Village MP said there must be separation of powers.

“What I find interesting about what is happening now with this particular attorney general, first of all, he is not an elected person and he is interfering in the process and procedure of the elected members of Parliament who represent the Bahamian people.

“The representative members of Parliament through this Speaker has a ruling that should govern the affairs of the Parliament and the attorney general is attempting to overturn that ruling from his seat as attorney general and as a member of the executive branch. It is definitely undermining the whole principle and concept of the separation of powers and it should be resisted.”

When asked what the committee members should do, he went a step further and said Mr Pinder should be brought before the PAC to answer questions on several matters.

“In my estimation, what should happen is the AG himself should be brought before the Public Accounts Committee to (give) justification for giving $2.5m of the taxpayers’ money and he should be called, the former member of Parliament Shane Gibson, and he should be called before the Public Accounts Committee to give justification on how he arrived at a decision that the prosecution of Shane Gibson was malicious prosecution,” Mr Moultrie argued.

“How did you arrive at the fact that Shane Gibson should be awarded $2.5m of the taxpayers’ money on the basis of malicious prosecution? Then he should be called to give an account to the Bahamian people on the BPL settlement that he made with respect to Darnell Osborne who had brought an action against the government and the government felt that the matter should be settled.

“He should give an account to the Bahamian people because there should be no such thing as a non-disclosure clause with respect to the public's purse. If monies are being taken from the consolidated fund to settle any disputes, there should be no such thing as a provision that should be accepted as a nondisclosure provision.”