By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Deputy Chief Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

OFFICIAL Opposition Leader Philip “Brave” Davis yesterday questioned the basis of the government’s filing a notice of intent to drop its appeal of the landmark Supreme Court ruling on parliamentary privilege concerning former Cabinet minister Jerome Fitzgerald as he insisted that the move is “payback”.

Speaking on a matter of privilege in the House of Assembly, Mr Davis was adamant that his privilege as a member of Parliament had been “egregiously” breached by the government’s action, as he called on House Speaker D Halson Moultrie to investigate the matter.

On Sunday Fred Smith, QC, told The Tribune that a notice of discontinuance had been filed, and a formal position was expected at a status hearing scheduled for June 26.

Pointing to this, Mr Davis intimated that this decision was made as a favour to Mr Smith for his financial contributions to the governing Free National Movement (FNM).

However, Works Minister Desmond Bannister argued that Mr Davis had not raised a point of privilege and was seemingly aggrieved because he was unhappy that the move meant the government was no longer paying for legal representation for the former Marathon MP, whom he said acted “improperly.”

Mr Davis denied this, adding that the separation of power should be considered because all members of Parliament stood to be affected by this issue.

Mr Davis said: “This appeal that relates to the privilege of Parliament where a former member of this House was held in contempt and was asked to pay damages with respect to the matter of $150,000. The matter is under appeal.

“The member is no longer a member of this House but yet still you could have the attorney, an attorney who is participating in that appeal who represents one of the parties in here, who has unashamedly indicated that they have supported in all sorts of manner and ways, the government, and now the question is what is this payback with the withdrawal of this appeal?

“We are an independent judiciary. We have privilege. We speak for those who cannot speak for themselves,” the Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador MP also said.

“When matters are brought to me by any member of the public I should be sufficiently privileged to come in there and speak to that. That was the genesis of the complaint that was made and action taken by the court.

“In this case my privilege is being breached with the concurrence of this House through the Speaker, the government participated with the action that was filed by Save the Bays and Fred Smith and now claims in the publication that it has been discontinued by the government.”

In an attempt to support her colleague’s argument in the House, Englerston MP Glenys Hanna Martin said the wider issue of “freedom of speech” was at hand.

For his part, Mr Bannister said Mr Davis did not raise a point of privilege.

He said if the former minister felt aggrieved with the court’s ruling, he had every right to seek recourse in the courts. He said yesterday’s lengthy back and forth over the matter between government and opposition MPs was not “fair to the government.”

The decision to drop the appeal is a change from the former administration’s position, which previously argued that Mr Fitzgerald’s statements in Parliament were protected from legal liability by way of constitutional provision, parliamentary privilege, and also legislatively under the Powers and Privileges Act.

Last year, Justice Charles ruled that Mr Fitzgerald could not be protected by parliamentary privilege, and ordered him to pay $150,000 in damages for the breach – a decision the former Marathon MP contended was made in error because he was “at all times acting in the public interest.”

At a hearing last month, Crown counsel Loren Klein asked Court of Appeal Justices Dame Anita Allen, Jon Isaacs and Stella Crane-Scott for a 30-day adjournment to allow the incoming attorney general to be briefed on the conduct of the proceedings thus far and for instructions to be taken.

Wayne Munroe, QC, who was also present for the hearing, said his presence there was concerning the interests of the Speaker of the House of Assembly in which the issue of parliamentary privilege arose.

In August last year, then Free National Movement Deputy Leader K Peter Turnquest expressed support for the court ruling that Mr Fitzgerald could not be protected by parliamentary privilege when he tabled the personal emails of members of Save the Bays.

Mr Turnquest, now deputy prime minister, noted last year that while the court may not have jurisdiction in the matter, he believes that Parliament must do a better job at policing itself.