0

The case of the purloined emails

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Speaker Dr Kendal Major says he may hold Minister Jerome Fitzgerald in contempt of the House of Assembly if he finds out that the private emails Mr Fitzgerald read in the House were illegally obtained. What a joke.

Is this the same Speaker who so many times before has required certain Opposition members to bring proof of things they tried to say in the House when, in their opinion, no proof was needed?

Now he allows a Minister of the Government to reveal on the floor of the House the private emails of citizens with the flimsy justification that the Minister found them in his “political garbage can”. Astonishing.

The Speaker should have stopped the Minister dead in his tracks when he attempted to do this because on the face of it (prima facie, as the lawyers say) it would appear that the emails were illegally obtained since the owners did not authorise their disclosure and since no court authorised it.

The citizens concerned have already been damaged along with the reputation of the country. If there is no recourse to the courts, what next should aggrieved citizens do when their private data are illegally accessed and exposed on the floor of the House?

The Speaker should not allow Members of the House to dump the content of garbage cans on the public because when he does that then citizens will seek other means to protect themselves, such as going to the courts.

Parliamentary privilege was meant to enable Members of Parliament to carry out their duties to the public. It was never meant to be a cover for criminal behaviour, or as House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin quoted on one occasion, the House should not be “a haven from the law”.

In Britain about six years ago, several Members of the House of Commons had their claim of parliamentary privilege rejected by the courts and they were tried and convicted in connection with abuse of their allowances and expenses.

All those concerned about the purloined emails should be aware that this is a very serious matter and should act with great care and in accordance with the best interests of the Bahamian people today and for the future

By the way, if the Attorney General, Chief Legal Advisor to the Executive, is to give advice to the Speaker or represent Parliament in any action, what does this say about the Speaker’s concern for the principle of separation of powers?

DIOGENES

Nassau,

April 26, 2016.

Comments

birdiestrachan 8 years, 6 months ago

Dr: Major is always correcting members of the governing party in my view more than the opposition. He is no Alvin Smith who did what his Papa told him to do, E mails are released every day. He did not read that much. I assume they are in the hands of the police. How did the press know what Ms. Pindling owed and what Mr. Lightbourne owed. not to mention who owes what at BOB. Now save the STB has Mr: Fitzgerald's name all over the TV. It seems as if STB and Fred Smith can say what ever they wish , but no one can say anything about them. some how it does not seem fair. STB has lots of money and fried Bacon is the money man.

sheeprunner12 8 years, 6 months ago

There will never be a fair, unbiased internal investigation under a PLP Cabinet ..... especially with AMG as Attorney-General and Perry as PM ...... but the PLP is slowly undermining the established checks and balances on the Executive by bashing these Constitutionally mandated structures ...... hence the USA's negative Report against the PLP government

Sign in to comment