By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

FORMER House Speaker Dr Kendal Major yesterday said he was surprised by the government’s decision to drop its appeal of the Supreme Court ruling on parliamentary privilege rather than allow the matter to be fully aired in the courts.

Dr Major underscored that such a critical ruling would better serve both jurisprudence and parliamentary privilege if it was reviewed by a cadre of judges at the highest level of the court system as opposed to a single Supreme Court judge.

He said he was looking forward to the result of the status hearing on June 26 when the government is expected to give formal notice of its intent to drop the appeal, and a final decision is made on the matter.

“I’m surprised,” Dr Major said, “it raised some eyebrows. I’d like to see the result of the status hearing.

“I think I understand the concerns of the public, of even the plaintiffs and the House at the time tried to address it with my explanation that the House must be able to govern itself and police itself in order to protect the public in the future, recognising that what was done was done in error. 

“However this is a matter that perhaps does good for the jurisprudence for it to extend beyond the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal, and then to the Privy Council so it could be fully aired and documented and so that [the judgement] is the precedent to be used going forward. Regardless of the outcome, for either side, academically it does justice for both jurisprudence and parliamentary privilege. You can’t just take a single judge on this, another judge may have the same ruling but a different explanation, another may have a different ruling with a different explanation.”

He added: “When I look at the nuances and the angle the judge took, it ought to be looked at by a group of judges and then let’s open discussion on it.”

Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles ruled last year that then-Marathon MP and Cabinet minister Jerome 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.”

The matter stemmed from Mr Fitzgerald’s tabling in Parliament of the private emails of the environmental action group Save The Bays.

Attorney General Carl Bethel stated that he made the decision to drop the case after discussions with counsel, and a full consideration of the costs associated with a full hearing. 

Save The Bays’ lawsuit filed by the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay was made against the government; however, Mr Bethel would not confirm whether the Public Treasury would be paying the $150,000 fine imposed by the Supreme Court.

Mr Fitzgerald has indicated that he would not be making a private appeal.

In the House of Assembly on Monday, Official Opposition Leader Philip “Brave” Davis suggested that this decision was made as a favour to STB legal director Fred Smith for his financial contributions to the governing Free National Movement (FNM).

Mr Davis argued 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.

However, Mr Smith yesterday called this argument a “red herring,” insisting that the organisation’s case argued that Mr Fitzgerald’s communication was made on behalf of Cabinet and the government. As such, Mr Smith underscored the court did not deprive members of Parliament of their parliamentary privilege.