The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

FORMER House Speaker Halson Moultrie suggested yesterday “any honourable” parliamentarian accused of criminal offences should consider resigning to protect the institution of Parliament.

His comments came a day after Long Island MP Adrian Gibson was charged with corruption crimes in connection with his tenure as executive chairman at the Water and Sewerage Corporation.

Mr Moultrie told The Tribune that while the law does not require sitting MPs who have been taken before the courts to vacate their seat, it does take exception to politicians who have been found in breach of certain Constitutional requirements set out specifically for parliamentarians.

The former Speaker was contacted to provide insight on the political implications of a sitting MP being charged before the courts after Mr Gibson was arraigned on a litany of corruption charges Monday.

The allegations, which range from false declaration, bribery, fraud, receiving and money laundering allegedly stem from Gibson’s failure to declare his interest in contracts awarded by WSC.

There have been calls for Mr Gibson to resign from his seat given the seriousness of the accusations levelled against him.

Leaders of the Free National Movement party did not respond to requests for comment on the issue yesterday. However, the party has said it stands in solidarity with him.

“Now, there are some rules with respect to Members of Parliament disclosing interests with respect to any contract that their family or they themselves may have some interest in,” Mr Moultrie told The Tribune. “... If you recall, there was a situation with the (former) member for St Annes, Brent Symonette where constitutionally, I think it was Article 46 or 49, he was required to disclose his interest in any contracts.

“Now, if Mr Gibson finds himself in breach of that provision, the Parliament itself can ask him to vacate his seat. That is the only scenario that I can think of that could perhaps impact him in a negative way. Of course, there is always the concept of honour and the Member of Parliament who is considered to be an honourable person should take into consideration the impact on the institution of the Parliament itself.

“Particularly, no one knows but the member, whether or not he is guilty of allegations being brought against him and the member may be prepared to fight it out in the courts, but an honourable person whose aware of his circumstances would do and should do the honorable thing which, in my estimation, would be to protect the institution by resigning.”

Asked whether he believed the Long Island MP should resign, Mr Moultrie said the matter was not up for him to decide.

“I believe that Mr Gibson is an attorney,” he added, “and I believe that he is able to weigh the evidence against him and in most circumstances, his attorneys would or should advise him on whether he should take a plea deal or compromise the situation with respect to his political career and his liberty, because while on one on end, he’s fighting the charges of corruption, on the other end he’s also facing the possibility of losing his freedom and so those attorneys would examine all of this evidence.”

He also noted that while it’s not unusual for MPs to be charged with criminal offenses, the situation will likely affect the party the member is a part of.

“The Free National Movement has a challenge there because they have just taken the PLP through an exercise very similar and so it could be looked at as if okay the PLP has pinpointed one or two individuals that they would target now in retribution for what happened to a number of their Members of Parliament and former ministers by the former Free National Movement administration under Dr Minnis, which is not a good thing at all for governance, or for good governance.

“Because at the end of the day, I can almost predict at the end of the day, no one’s coming out looking good in this matter, because at the end of the day, whether Mr Gibson is guilty or innocent, he’s going to appear to be targeted.”

He also said: “ … and you have a peculiar circumstance going on politically in this instance because the member for Long Island, the party, in my estimation, is symbolically apparent to protect him but if you follow the politics closely, you will see that the former Prime Minister went on the line to protect the member for St Barnabas but he didn’t do so for the member for Long Island.”

“So, there’s some other things going on even internally, within the FNM but obviously, it appears to me as a former politician… that the support in terms of political leadership is in play here. So, a member may have supported the current leader against the former leader or Prime Minister and the other person may be supportive of the former leader. So, you see a lot of matters are in play and this is not a simple situation.”