The Tribune

By LARRY SMITH

RECENTLY, senior Progressive Liberal Party cabinet ministers whipped up a political storm over something called parliamentary privilege, which most people have probably never heard of.

The ministers involved were the usual spin doctors - Fred “you are a traitor” Mitchell and Jerome “environmental disaster” Fitzgerald.

They fanned the storm into a force-five gale, hurling charges of sedition against their perceived political foes. And then they threatened to haul a Supreme Court judge, among others, before a parliamentary inquisition.

But it’s really only a tempest in a teacup. The storm was deliberately manufactured to deflect attention from a public relations problem over the government’s Canadian benefactor, Peter Nygard.

Nevertheless, it threatens to open a constitutional Pandora’s Box, so it’s worth taking a look at what parliamentary privilege actually is, in order to get a better grasp of the situation.

This legal concept evolved out of a centuries-old struggle between Parliament and the monarchy in England. Privilege was meant to prevent the King from interfering with the proper functioning of Parliament. Historically, this struggle involved the legislature’s right to approve tax measures wanted by the King. But mostly it related to religion.

The Protestant Reformation in 1517 generated a series of bloody religious wars in Europe as well as a multitude of dissenting churches. And in the early 1600s, England’s King Charles I was considered pro-Catholic, which led to concerns about the future of Protestantism.

After the King tried to arrest parliamentary leaders for treason, the country descended into civil war, which the parliamentarians won in 1646. Charles was executed and a short-lived republic formed, until it was overthrown in a military coup by Oliver Cromwell. After Cromwell’s death in 1658, the monarchy was restored and Charles II took the throne.

But this did not end the religious conflicts. The most explosive issue was the new King’s support for Catholics, which set the stage for another revolution.

In 1689, Parliament deposed the King and gave the throne to his elder daughter, Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange-Nassau in the Netherlands. This is when the name of our capital city was changed from Charlestown to Nassau.

At the same time, Parliament enacted a Bill of Rights, which limited the powers of the monarch and confirmed the right to regular elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. This Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth countries – including the Bahamas – although royal succession rules were amended in 2011.

As you can surmise, little of this ancient historical context is of relevance to modern-day politics. But parliamentary privilege remains an integral part of the Westminster system of government, as practised in most former British colonies.

In Britain, the House of Commons Library, Parliament and Constitution Centre says parliamentary privilege has two essential components: “Freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the exercise by parliament of control over its own affairs.”

But, experts say, the privilege of freedom of speech places a duty on MPs to use that freedom responsibly. In fact, privilege is a controversial issue today precisely because of its potential for abuse.

For example, in 2009 a major political scandal erupted in Britain over expense claims made by MPs. These abuses resulted in resignations and firings together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses.

Several MPs were prosecuted and imprisoned, but some claimed to be immune from criminal proceedings because of parliamentary privilege. This defence was rejected by the court. In other words, Parliament cannot use privilege as a method to avoid abiding by the ordinary laws of the land.

And according to a recent report by the London-based Constitution Society, “the courts are the ultimate arbiters of the scope of parliamentary privilege as ordained in law, although parliament may always legislate on it”.

Most experts who have written on this subject agree that parliamentary privilege is a complex topic with many grey areas, some of which may never be resolved. So our intrepid cabinet ministers have stepped in to exploit these grey areas in an attempt to divert attention from a legitimate issue of influence peddling on a massive scale.

They attacked members of the Save The Bays environmental group, alleging they were seeking to overthrow the government. And they tabled and discussed the personal emails of the targeted individuals. This led Save The Bays to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction preventing the release of personal information in Parliament. This was subsequently granted, setting the stage for an unseemly clash between Parliament and the courts.

Our cabinet ministers threatened to summon the judge to appear before a House committee on privilege. Their motion was supported by the Deputy Prime Minister, and public funds have been allocated to the committee. Meanwhile, the judge is scheduled to rule on a government application to set aside her injunction later this week.

Does this add up to de-stablisation of the government - or the judicial process?

What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com