By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

HOUSE of Assembly Deputy Speaker Dion Smith said yesterday he does not know if he would have allowed Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald to table the private e-mails of environmental group Save the Bays in Parliament.

Mr Smith, during a press conference at his Bahamas Agriculture and Industrial Corporation (BAIC) office, said the instinctive nature of parliamentary procedures could have led him to rule either way on the matter if he had been in the chair when Mr Fitzgerald tabled the e-mails in March.

“Sometimes when you are there, things just happen,” he said. Mr Smith said during his four years in the post of deputy speaker, he has always advocated for the respect of House rules.

He maintained that House Speaker Dr Kendal Major allowed the matter to go ahead in the moment, therefore as deputy speaker he has to respect the ruling.

“It is a very difficult thing to say what I would have done had I been there. One thing is when you are in the chair, when I am in the chair as deputy speaker, whatever I do is final and the one thing I don’t want to be doing now is making it seem that I don’t support the Speaker and what he did.

“I support him. And what I like is he supports me. Whenever I am in the chair, if I make a decision, when he comes back (and) a member tries to have that decision overruled, he says, ‘No, I support the deputy, he made his decision and I support him.’

“But it is difficult to say if I would have allowed it. Perhaps at the time I may have asked a different question and a different answer may have been given and I may have said no, I wouldn’t have let it in,” he said.

Last Thursday during an appearance on the 96.9 FM talk show “Morning Blend,” Dr Major admitted that in hindsight, he should not have allowed the Marathon MP to read and table the private e-mails of the environmental group in March.

However, Dr Major went on to suggest that the judiciary should not have the power to interfere with matters in Parliament and said “respectfully,” the court ought to mind its own business.

Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles, earlier this month, declared that Mr Fitzgerald was not legally justified when he tabled the private e-mails, and therefore could not be protected by parliamentary privilege.

Justice Charles ruled that the Marathon MP’s actions were an infringement of the constitutional rights of the applicants and ordered Mr Fitzgerald to pay $150,000 in damages for the breach.

The Office of the Attorney General has said that it would appeal the ruling and was granted a stay pending the appeal.

Addressing the ruling yesterday, the Nassau Village MP admitted that he hasn’t read the complete ruling put forth by Justice Charles. He said while he does not believe the judiciary should interfere with matters in Parliament, due process and the court’s ruling should be respected.

Mr Smith called on his parliamentary colleagues to “deal with the facts” and allow court proceedings to run their course.

“I don’t think that our privilege should be interfered with in that way and the only thing that I can add is, different countries, their jurisdictions, the way in which the executive and judiciary operates (is) a little different. I don’t know if perhaps the jurisdiction that Ms Charles comes from, maybe does things a little differently,” he said.

“So, I am trying to say, let’s just deal with the facts with what has happened and see what the Court of Appeal has said after the matter has been appealed and then whether or not the other side decides that they want to take it to the Privy Council. So in other words, I am not trying to throw anybody under the bus. Perhaps (in) her jurisdiction she may have seen some things differently, and I can tell you, my pupil-master, Wayne Munroe, QC, who has trained me very well, he has always told me that a judge can never be wrong in their own court.”

“In other words, you always show them that respect. You see what is wrong with the judgment and you appeal it. I am not taking a very emotional stance to this - you appeal it. And the court will have their say at the end of the day,” he added.

Mr Smith further commented that if he were in the position of Mr Fitzgerald, he would have found another way to present his claims to the House.

“As an attorney, I would have found a different way to say what the e-mail said without actually tabling the e-mail. That’s just the way attorneys are. I am not saying that Mr Fitzgerald (was wrong). I am saying for me, based on my training by Wayne Munroe, QC, I perhaps might have tried to a different way, that’s all I can say - if I was the member.”

The House of Assembly’s Committee on Privilege has been appointed to investigate the matter and determine if anyone should be held in contempt.