The Tribune

HOUSE SPEAKER Dr Kendal Major, like the rest of us, is baffled by an unsigned document from the Attorney General’s office, which purports to give a legal opinion on the powers of the Public Accounts Committee. The obvious intent of that opinion is to curb the traditional powers of that committee, which, apparently, is now trespassing on sacred ground — Urban Renewal.

According to the “leaked” unsigned document, it is from the Attorney General’s office and “represents the advice of eminent attorneys of international and national stature.” The covering letter to the “leaked” document says it “has been perfected and submitted without edit to hierarchy members of the Bahamas Government.”

Questioned over the telephone on Friday by a radio interviewer about the document, a surprised House Speaker said he knew nothing about it.

“I was shocked,” he told the interviewer, “because this document was not commissioned by the parliament. I do not know who commissioned it. It had no signature, I do not know who it was intended for.”

Maybe this is more grist for the Public Accounts Committee’s mill as it follows the paper trail of how Bahamians’ taxes are being spent, or misspent. Who authorised and paid for these “eminent attorneys of international and national stature”? And if parliament did not authorise their payment, or commission the document, then, who did?

Unlike TS Eliot’s Macavity, the mystery cat, on whom no misdeed could ever be pinned, because he was never at the scene, this clumsy act has left a paper trail that does not bode well for democracy.

We think that the PAC and the Speaker should pause a moment to follow the paper trail of this document, which claims paternity in the Attorney General’s office. The answer to these questions should be of interest: Who are these learned international and national attorneys and how much were they paid and out of whose pocket did the money come — the taxpayers? Are the producers of this document, in trying to give weight to an otherwise featherweight opinion, using the name of long since dead Sir Erskine Mays, author of May’s Parliamentary Procedure, who is quoted in the document, as one of their learned scribes?

In our opinion, this document is a hoax to dupe the committee and the Speaker. In making their decision, it should be ignored. If the PAC used the wrong document in requesting its witnesses, then all they have to do is submit the correct document, and get on with the process.

Even Prime Minister Christie lauded the powers of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) when in the House of Assembly in the recent debate on the lack of insurance for the burned down BAMSI dormitories at Andros. At that time Mr Christie boasted how, when in Opposition, the PLP used this committee’s investigative powers to embarrass the Ingraham government.

“Mr Speaker,” he said, “if they (the FNM) feel there are discrepancies (and) inaccuracies even fraudulent manifestations (at BAMSI) they have the power to send for persons and papers and they have the majority of the committee,” Mr Christie said, referring to the Public Accounts Committee.

“It is that committee,” he continued, “we used to expose one of the grandest displays of uncontrolled expenditure on the part of the opposition when they were the government. We used it effectively when someone who called (himself) deputy prime minister in their government was connected by shareholding to the company that got the contract and they around here talking about cronyism.”

Suddenly, now that the FNM is using that same committee to the discomfort of the PLP government — the PLP, unlike the FNM, are trying to neuter the committee. We might not have a Freedom of Information Act, but its absence has made journalists even more determined to find the lock doors and embarrass them open with questions.

In the 1980s, the late Paul Adderley, then attorney general, scoffed at the inaction of the PAC, which at that time hadn’t met for five years (1982-1987) – despite the fact that it should have given at least one report to the House during the session.

“If the Opposition ignores the most important standing committee, which it controls,” said Mr Adderley, “I have to draw to their attention that they are delinquent in that respect. That is the parliamentary watchdog of public expenditure.”

Mr Adderley said the Opposition had no control over what government spent its money on, but “the how” was in the hands of the all powerful committee.

Being the typical politician and relying on the ignorance of the people, Mr Adderley did not confess that the so-called “all powerful committee” was only as powerful as the governing party permitted it to be. In 1982 members of the Accounts Committee hung up their gloves because the government had made it impossible for them to function.

When the committee asked for information — for example, the audited reports – it was refused. And then it couldn’t meet, because it could not get a quorum – and without a quorum it could examine nothing. This was the problem Mr Hubert Chipman’s committee faced when it was appointed. However, Mr Chipman now has a strong committee — two accountants (himself being one) and a seasoned lawyer. As long as these three stick together, meetings can be held, and reports can be given. Foot dragging by the two PLP members should not delay their work. However, if there should be obstruction of the people’s business, the voters will be reminded in 2017.

The first meeting of the Public Accounts Committee under this government was on Thursday, April 11, 2013 and the first item on the agenda was the spending of Urban Renewal. So to suggest that the committee was asking the auditor to go out of his way to do anything special is nonsense. The auditor had already rolled up his sleeves and sharpened his pencil on Urban Renewal. What the committee is now examining is a segment of the programme — the small homes repair project.

We urge the Speaker to advise the two heads of this project to accept the Public Accounts Committee’s invitation to assist them in assuring the public that their money is being well spent.