The Tribune

By KHRISNA RUSSELL

Deputy Chief Reporter

krussell@tribunemedia.net

HOUSE Speaker Halson Moultrie yesterday criticised Official Opposition Leader Philip “Brave” Davis for an “inappropriate” public challenge of a decision that disallowed him the opportunity to wrap up debate on a confidence resolution in the prime minister last week.

The decision, according to Mr Davis earlier this week during a press conference, constituted an abuse of power by the speaker. He further alleged it was an attempt to silence the opposition for “pure and naked political reasons”.

Responding yesterday, Speaker Moultrie said his action taken on December 11 in the House of Assembly was consistent with Parliament’s rules.

This is despite his view that the rules “evince a Machiavellian philosophy” that does serious damage to minority parties.

Speaker Moultrie said given this long-standing concern, he had called on the rules committee to meet for more than two years to review and propose changes.

“First of all I’d just like to simply say that in in legal environments and in quasi judicial environments it is inappropriate first of all for any member who may be aggrieved by any decision of the chair or of a judge to seek to raise red herrings in the media or the press and to challenge that decision when the rules of procedure provides the procedure for any aggrieved member to follow,” Mr Moultrie told the House of Assembly.

“Secondly with respect to these rules, these rules in my estimation when you read them in their totality, evinces a Machiavellian philosophy to do the most serious damage to the minority parties.

“I disagree absolutely with the philosophy and contempt of most of these rules and I’ve been calling for the rules committee to meet for more than two and a half years now to review these rules. If someone had taken the opportunity to read these rules in totality they would have discovered the action taken by the speaker on the 11th of December was consistent with the rules that we happen to be functioning under.”

He continued: “In particular, the rule 33(9) is very clear that other than on motion on censor or no confidence, of which is critical of government or of an officer in service of government or a public corporation, the final reply of the mover of the original question closes the debate. That rule is very clear that other than those two motions the mover has the right to close the debate.

“But on this particular instance on the 11th of December we were dealing with censor and motion of no confidence which does not give the mover the right to close the debate. That rule is clear.

“Secondly it is not correct to suggest that the speaker permitted the governing party to repeal a motion when the rules are clear that a motion can be amended and one of the motions for amendment without notice is a motion to amend a motion and so it’s incorrect to suggest that the matter was repealed.”

On Sunday, Mr Davis maintained that as mover of a no confidence resolution in the prime minister and according Parliament’s rules, there must always be a summing up by the mover of the motion unless he directs that someone else do so.

He insisted that in this instance the opposition was denied the privilege and honour that is ordained by that convention and rule because the speaker closed the debate without allowing the debate to be summed up. The no confidence resolution was amended to a confidence motion in Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, which was passed in the House of Assembly last week.

Mr Davis said the no confidence resolution was the result of opposition’s concern that the prime minister misled the House of Assembly last year when government sought approval to lease the Town Centre Mall for the relocation of the General Post Office.

The building is part owned by St Anne’s MP Brent Symonette.