The Tribune

By RICHARD COULSON

MARATHON MP and Minister of Education Jerome Fitzgerald has been wrapping his rugged frame in the mantle of Parliamentary Privilege (PP), enshrined in English law since the Bill of Rights of 1689 and governing procedures not only in the House of Commons but also in the US Congress and our House of Assembly.

Giving legislators the (almost) unlimited freedom to say whatever they wish inside the chamber confines, PP has allowed them to produce millions of eloquent and productive words, as well as to declaim reams of blatant foolishness. Mr Fitzgerald has chosen the second path, with statements not only nonsense but possibly actionable.

On March 17 he disclosed to the House the startling news of a plot against the nation - Guy Fawkes had been found laying gunpowder while Jerome claimed to unearth the modern equivalent, letters, e-mails and wire transfers. They emanated from Save the Bays (STB), using its status, he charged, as a licensed charity to conceal its true role of leading an insurrection backed by foreign billionaire Louis Bacon. STB was the chosen instrument to “overthrow” or “destabilise” our Government.

Strong words! They suggest only one thing: sedition, covered in our Penal Code as a crime against the Security of the State. Surely Jerome must have reported his shattering discovery to the police, called the Commissioner personally, warned the Attorney General about the perpetrators. And released unassailable evidence to support a full investigation.

But it seems not: all he did was to speak heatedly and dump a bunch of papers on a table in the House. Their content or how they were obtained was not disclosed. Fitzgerald simply said that he innocently found them in his “political garbage bag”, whatever that dog-eared receptacle may be. One suspects his evidence against STB would be laughed out of court, as not even approaching the standard of “seditious intention” defined in Sec. 395 of the Code.

Although praised by fellow PLP stalwarts, his announcement was immediately castigated by the financial and business community and by the head of the Data Protection Commission for gross violation of confidentiality, and Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles chimed in with an injunction against any further disclosure of these or similar documents, pending a hearing scheduled for May 12.

Undaunted, Fitzgerald vigorously threatened to produce further evidence that would force STB to batten down as if hit by a “force-five hurricane”, claiming an unfettered PP right to freedom of speech. He was supported by Speaker of the House Kendal Major in full-throated defence of PP and by fellow MP and Minister Fred Mitchell, who derided the Court and the Commission as being run by know-nothing judges and civil servants. This PLP team attempted (unsuccesfully) to quash the injunction and even moved to bring Justice Charles and legal counsel before a House committee concerned about contempt of Parliament. Is a constitutional battle between legislature and judiciary brewing?

Maybe not. Fitzgerald still has not initiated any legal action against STB to back up his charges of sedition. His position is diluted by his claim that STB was actually attacking “the duly elected PLP government”. That’s a far cry from a crime against the state; at most an attack on a political party. STB is the well-known foe of Peter Nygard, the PLP backer who has been photographed entertaining Mr Fitzgerald on his Clifton Bay terrace.

He may also suffer doubts that PP will protect him against the specific crime of disclosing confidential information, enjoined not only by the Data Protection Act but also by bank secrecy laws and Art. 23 of our Constitution. He is doubtless aware of the leading 2010 English case of R v Claytor, involving three MPs were who were criminally charged under the Theft Act for inflating their parliamentary travel expenses. They claimed that PP gave them immunity from prosecution. England’s highest court of appeal bluntly disagreed: MPs are not exempt from prosecution for criminal acts, even if committed within the House.

It’s likely that the current injunctions and motions will simply die a natural death, based as they are purely on Jerome’s original inflammatory bombast about STB threatening the state. It may well be threatening the PLP, but a goodly number of our citizens legitimately share that democratic objective.