The Tribune

CLARIFICATION: IN this article printed on Tuesday, under the headline: “Rollins quits as PLP whip”, it was reported that Dr Andre Rollins was not invited to a recent meeting held by government members to discuss the revised referendum questions. The Tribune would like to clarify that Dr Rollins said he was “not made aware of (the meeting) and as such I didn’t attend”. Dr Rollins later added that he had received an email from Leader of Government Business Dr Bernard Nottage inviting him to the meeting, however, he said he “didn’t learn of the meeting until after it was held”. The Progressive Liberal Party parliamentary meeting in question took place on Sunday.

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

PRIME Minister Perry Christie yesterday announced the resignation of Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins as party whip.

Mr Christie said Dr Rollins’ decision to step down was the “right thing” given his outspoken criticism of the constitutional amendment bills and pointed disagreement with two of them. However, the prime minister stressed that, contrary to suggestions by Dr Rollins, he has never pressured dissenters to “tow the party line”.

His comments came hours after Dr Rollins revealed to The Tribune that his relationship with fellow Progressive Liberal Party MPs had become strained. However, Dr Rollins denied rumours that he was switching to the Free National Movement because of his adversarial stance towards his own party members in the House.

As he wrapped up debate on the constitutional amendment bills, Mr Christie explained that he met recently with Dr Rollins and Marco City MP Greg Moss to discuss their concerns on the proposed amendments.

“The member for Fort Charlotte said he was not comfortable with some of the positions that he was taking knowing he was the party whip. That is his position on the matter and so then he decided to resign and I’ll accept it because that’s the right thing for him to do,” Mr Christie said.

He also shot down assertions that he has directed PLP MPs how to vote on the bills.

“I am the leader of the Progressive Liberal Party and the leader of government,” he said. “There is no one in this country who can say that the word came down from the leader that they had to vote in a certain way, they had to behave in a certain way, I don’t conduct myself like that.”

During an emotional and very frank contribution on the bills last week, Dr Rollins also suggested that senior members of the PLP try to politically annihilate those who are not publicly towing the party line. He suggested that the “new generation PLPs” may have been “tokens” to win the 2012 general election, but the party now wants them to conceal their true beliefs if they differ from PLP rhetoric. At the time, he also said he was prepared to resign as party whip if the government did not heed his recommendations on the bills.

In an interview with The Tribune yesterday, Dr Rollins said he was not invited to a recent meeting held by government members to discuss the revised referendum questions, adding that he could have presented his concerns in a private manner at that time.

Dr Rollins said that he was tired of the “intellectual dishonesty” from the government, but added that his concerns on the upcoming referendum were not politically motivated.

“It has nothing to do with that, honestly I’m tired of it, I’m not supportive of intellectual dishonesty,” he said. “What they (government) will purport to do, and as they are beginning to do, is to try and totally discredit those who have offered contrary viewpoints, or opposing viewpoints.

“It has nothing to do with the merit of what we’re saying it has everything to do with trying to discredit us in the public’s eye, so that their intentions to carry these pieces of legislation will not be met by any further opposition. But the public is entitled to hear that there are ramifications beyond potentially what is being articulated by those who have not wished to articulate all of the potential ramifications.”

The first and second reading of the four bills were passed in the House of Assembly. Mr Christie said the remaining issues between the government and the opposition were technical, and not based conflicting philosophy. Dr Rollins was the only person that voted against the bills – he rose to his feet to object to bills two and four.

The bills will go into the committee stage in the House of Assembly on Monday, when a final vote is expected.

Bill two seeks to allow the foreign spouse of a Bahamian citizen the ability to apply for and obtain citizenship, after satisfying protocols.

The fourth bill seeks to end discrimination based on sex. Under this proposed change to the Constitution, it would be unlawful to discriminate based on sex, and “sex” would be defined as meaning male or female.

“I support all efforts to promote equality between men and women,” Dr Rollins said yesterday. “My personal view is, with respect to bill two, I don’t think constitutionally the issue of conferring citizenship on spouses should arise to that level where it is entrenched in the Constitution. I believe that legal statute and public policy are more than able to deal with those matters.

“As it relates to bill four, if we wish as a country to embrace things that are not today a part of the cultural norm then fine.”

Standing on a point of order in the House of Assembly, Dr Rollins maintained that concerns over linkages in the fourth bill to same sex marriage were legitimate. He pointed to general recommendations given to the Bahamas by the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which called for women’s rights to be inter-sectional, extending to sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell explained that the country was not mandated as a signatory to CEDAW to automatically fulfil recommendations made by state parties.