The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

I decided to pen this letter because of the many queries I have received regarding the criminal charges that have been levied against two sitting members of Parliament. I have been asked if I know of any other time this has occurred and if I think the two should resign their seats in the House of Assembly.

Firstly, I do not know of any other time two sitting members were charged with criminal offences. I cannot recall another time when this has occurred because it is so exceptional for a sitting member to be charged with a criminal offence. Usually when candidates are chosen to run for the House of Assembly they are vetted by the party’s machinery. Even though vetting cannot or will not guarantee integrity, once the process is vigorous it should eliminate persons with the predisposition to commit the kind of serious crimes that have been alleged.

I hope that holding on to a seat in Parliament after having been charged with a criminal offence does not become a trend. If it does become trendy to do so, it would be new to the parliamentary traditions.

In 1989 Mr Wilbert Moss resigned his seat as soon as he was charged with a criminal offence. His resignation from the House ensured that his personal indiscretion was accepted and seen as a personal one and removed any negative connotation that may have been relegated to other members or to the institution of Parliament.

Should the two Members resign their seats in the House of Assembly?

There is no constitutional or legal requirement for the two Members to resign. In fact, if the maxim of presumption of innocence is seen to its logical conclusion, then the two members should have every right to remain as members of Parliament. While due process is essential in a parliamentary democracy, there are other factors that ought to come into play.

The Westminster system only works properly when all of its unwritten conventions are adhered to. One of the foundational conventions is a subliminal code of honour. All Members of Parliament are presumed honourable, that is why they are referred to as the Hon. Member for such-and-such a constituency. The code also presumes that when they speak in Parliament Members are speaking truth. It is an extremely high bar but persons who offer to represent others in Parliament should be held to a higher standard.

Moreover, the interest of constituents must be held higher than personal ambitions and party loyalty. Likewise the institution of Parliament and its traditions must be considered foremost by parliamentarians.

So, yes, I do believe that once a Member of Parliament is charged with a criminal offence, that Member has a duty to resign the seat. Resignation does not equate to guilt. But I see no way that someone charged with criminal offences can properly perform their role as a parliamentarian. The Members’ primary role as Members of Parliament is to represent the interests of constituents and to speak honourably on their behalf. I see no way that can happen when their energies and attention are fixated on their personal issues.

I also believe that the two serving members who have alleged criminal charges hanging over their heads do irreparable damage to the traditions and reputation of parliament and even to the political parties that have invested in their fidelity.

My view is that the Nolan Report of 1995 and the principles which emerged from the report are still very relevant today. The Nolan Committee on Standards in public life recommended seven principles which ought to be adopted by persons serving in public life. Although the principles were to be embraced by all public officers, they were particularly applicable to politicians.

The seven principles included: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. Each principle would dictate that a Member should resign if charged with criminal offences. If these principles were accepted and applied in their service on behalf of citizens, it would eliminate much of the grift and corruptive behaviour present in the political culture. These principles should also be applied by political parties in their vetting of potential candidates for political office.

I would like to see the Parliament consider and enact an Omnibus Parliamentary Bill which should deal with various aspects of public service and representation by parliamentarians. Among other things, the Bill should set standards for parliamentarians, create a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians, provide for disclosure of gifts to parliamentarians above a certain amount, provide for a procedure for impeachment of members for certain acts of dishonesty and breaches of ethics. The Bill should also provide for the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner/ombudsman to receive and address complaints by the public about actions of parliamentarians. Additionally, I think the Bill should require the resignation of the Speaker from his/her political party to at least give some level of comfort to the independence of the office holder.

Again I maintain that parliamentarians who are charged with criminal offences should resign from parliament. Resignation does not equate to admittance of guilt. Democracy requires the trust and confidence of citizens. Holding on to elected seats after you have been charged with a criminal offence in my opinion erodes the trust and confidence of citizens in the national institutions in general and the Parliament in particular.

MAURICE TYNES

Nassau,

August 15, 2023.