The Tribune

WORKS Minister Desmond Bannister yesterday denied defaming Jerome Fitzgerald while insisting yesterday the former education minister launched an attack on the Carmichael MP’s parliamentary privilege.

As he denied any wrongdoing, Mr Bannister told the House of Assembly a person can only be defamed when they have a good reputation.

The matter stems from revelations Mr Bannister made last Wednesday in the House of Assembly regarding a forensic audit, which he said found glaring infractions in the Bahamas Power and Light tender process under the former Christie administration.

According to Mr Bannister, the Ernst & Young audit said a company – owned by Mr Fitzgerald’s father – was awarded a contract for brokerage work despite no participation in the tender process and a recommendation another entity should be given approval.

In one instance the audit said Bahamas Courier & Logistics (BCL) was awarded a contract over Pinder’s Customs Brokerage, a company with the best bid.

In response, Mr Fitzgerald accused Mr Bannister of “defamatory” statements and insisted he did not benefit from a BPL brokerage contract awarded to BCL.

He said the minister’s reference to him in Parliament last week was “gratuitous” and not protected by the privileges of the House of Assembly.

Mr Fitzgerald further threatened to bring legal action for “defamation” in reference to newspaper headlines and “skillfully misleading information” in the publications regarding the matter.

“Mr Speaker, I wish to announce publicly that if Mr Fitzgerald files a lawsuit against me based on a claim that I defamed him when I spoke in this place on September 20, 2017, I will waive my parliamentary privilege in relation to that occasion. I shall do so, sir, on the condition that Mr Fitzgerald provides two simple undertakings,” Mr Bannister said on a point of privilege in Parliament yesterday during the morning session.

“The first is that he will proceed quickly with the action, and will not withdraw it until the court issues its judgment. Sir, this first condition is in Mr Fitzgerald’s best interest since he would not wish to withdraw an action that he files in order to vindicate himself.

“The second undertaking is that Mr Fitzgerald will agree to pay me any damages or costs that the court determines ought to be paid to me within 30 days of the judgment. I find this condition necessary, sir, because I am reliably informed that in the year and a half since the Supreme Court issued its ruling against him, Mr Fitzgerald has not paid the $150,000 fine, and indeed may be relying on the government to pay it for him as well as his legal costs which may amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

He was referring to a Supreme Court decision and resulting fine after it was ruled last year Mr Fitzgerald was not legally justified when he tabled the private emails of environmental action group Save The Bays in Parliament, and therefore could not be protected by parliamentary privilege.

“Finally, Mr Speaker, again in contrast to Mr Fitzgerald, I publicly undertake that should he file his lawsuit, I will retain at my own expense attorneys from the private Bar to represent me. I am different from him, and will not rely on the government to defend me in court at the expense of the Bahamian people,” Mr Bannister said.

“The one good thing that has emerged from Mr Fitzgerald’s recent rants is the indication of his newfound confidence that the courts that he vilified are indeed independent and impartial, and will fairly adjudicate his case against me.

“I do not wish to hinder or prejudice Mr Fitzgerald’s quest to litigate this matter, and accordingly I shall not be asking for a ruling on this attack on my privilege in his honourable House.”

Earlier in his address to colleagues Mr Bannister had said: “Respect is something that I carry with me every time I enter this historic building, and often I pause to reflect upon the tradition of integrity that so many past members brought to this place.

“That is why I so carefully check, double check and triple check every word that I utter in this place. I want the people of Carmichael who elected me and the people of the Bahamas to appreciate that we are here to do their business, and we will do it in a manner that respects the honour, dignity and traditions of Parliament.”

He also said: “He (Mr Fitzgerald) abused the privilege of this honourable House and ought to have been condemned for blatantly misusing this forum that the Bahamian people have entrusted to us. His mean-spirited and churlish conduct was offensive to right thinking people. History will not remember him kindly.

“I deny defaming Mr Fitzgerald. In any event, I am advised that one may only defame someone who has a good reputation.”

Responding to this, Mr Fitzgerald in a statement yesterday said when it comes to his reputation, his accomplishments under the former government will be recorded on the right side of history.

He also said it is ironic Mr Bannister seemed not to know the difference between a caution and a threat to file suit, while maintaining he never gave himself a government contract while he was in Cabinet.

For his part on the court’s ruling on Save The Bays, Mr Fitzgerald said: “Save the Bays cleverly sued me in my capacity as a minister of the government and not my personal capacity and as such they effectively sued the government. Had they sued me in my personal capacity obviously I would have had to bear the cost but I would have also been obligated to reveal everything I had in my possession and knew to the courts and Save the Bays on discovery would have done the same.

“I want to make it absolutely clear that when the government withdrew the appeal in the Save the Bays matter they did not consult me nor did they have to as I was not a party to the matter in my personal capacity. In fact, the Court of Appeal made it clear at the hearing that I was personally liable for any cost or the $150,000 fine. That was the cost to the government for withdrawing the appeal.”

Mr Bannister’s remarks in the House sparked a back and forth argument between him and Englerston MP Glenys Hanna Martin. She argued he further attacked Mr Fitzgerald, suggesting he was a private citizen.

Her constant attempts to make arguments in this regard led House Speaker Halson Moultrie to threaten she would be named and suspended in the House if these attempts did not cease. He viewed the attempts as disrespect to the chair.

Later when the House returned from its afternoon break, PLP Leader Philip “Brave” Davis chimed in on the matter.

He said the former MP is a private citizen and it is “not proper or appropriate for us to speak to him or to his character in any demeaning way.”

In response, Mr Bannister said he was very deliberate in what he said in Parliament. He said he stood by every word he said and would not hide behind privilege.