Friday, February 15, 2019
By KHRISNA RUSSELL
Deputy Chief Reporter
krussell@tribunemedia.net
CENTREVILLE MP Reece Chipman suggested yesterday two Cabinet ministers should face consequences for their involvement in events leading up to Frank Smith’s bribery and extortion trial.
Mr Chipman told reporters outside the House of Assembly if the Westminster system is what the country follows then “what is good for one should be good for the other”.
He is the second backbench MP this week to suggest there ought to be repercussions for Health Minister Dr Duane Sands and National Security Minister Marvin Dames’ involvement in the matter.
On Wednesday, Golden Isles MP Vaughn Miller urged the government to treat the ministers the same as he and two others were treated according to the Westminster system when they were fired for their stance against the government’s decision to increase value added tax last year.
The Progressive Liberal Party has also repeatedly called for them both to either be fired or resign after Chief Magistrate Joyann Ferguson-Pratt cited their “egregious” conduct in connection with Mr Smith’s trial in which he was acquitted of all charges.
Mr Chipman was asked about the issue after he told House members the chief magistrate was being presented with his constituency’s “thumbs up award” this month for taking a course of action that transcended politics and tapped into a benefit to the next generation.
“The Westminster system is a noble system and it’s a model that I believe reflects the integrity not only of a country but of a system,” Mr Chipman said when he was asked about Mr Miller’s earlier remarks. “So if we are going to follow the Westminster system I think we ought to respect the consistency in the way we interpret the system.
“So, yes, I agree with him that what is good for one should be good for the other and we ought not to be interpreting the Westminster system differently at different times. It is what it is. It’s a noble model and it’s a model that I think reflects on adequate and proper governance.”
Asked to clarify whether he meant the Cabinet ministers should face consequences, Mr Chipman said: “For me if the model is the Westminster model then we follow the Westminster model.
“I am saying that whatever the Westminster model is and based on looking at being consistent with regards to our interpretation of the model I think we should be consistent with the Westminster model.”
Explaining further why he chose Chief Magistrate Ferguson-Pratt for the “award”, Mr Chipman said: “I think sometimes there comes a point in time when persons and individuals in our country transcends the politics and politics as you know is in the very fabric of our country and our people. But sometimes when you look at cases where we must get out of the politics and look at the next generation and a part of the next generation is understanding where our systems are in the Bahamas. The judiciary is one of those systems that we depend on for fairness, for our security (and) our very existence, so I just wanted the judiciary to know that I appreciate, Centreville appreciates the work that they do and how difficult it must be to make the decisions that they make.”
Mr Chipman was fired as chairman of the Antiquities Monuments and Museums Corporation last March after he defied Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis’ ultimatum to tender his resignation.
His firing came just three months before Mr Miller and Bain and Grants Town MP Travis Robinson were fired as parliamentary secretaries in the Ministry of Social Services and Ministry of Tourism respectively.
Pineridge MP Frederick McAlpine was also fired as chairman of the Hotel Corporation.
The latter three were fired because they publicly stood against the VAT hike from 7.5 percent to 12 percent last year.
Comments
tell_it_like_it_is says...
Sands and Dames are 2 **extremely** arrogant men. Good luck with that!
Posted 15 February 2019, 10:20 a.m. Suggest removal
Well_mudda_take_sic says...
And Minnis is even more arrogant than Sands and Dames combined! LMAO
Posted 15 February 2019, 1:43 p.m. Suggest removal
TalRussell says...
Yes, or no seems comrade "Junior" Chippie, should've listen he grandpa Chippie, not carry out an actual coup d’etat, against Centerville's Perry. Yes, no might've be wiser have saved unseat MP Minnis?
Posted 15 February 2019, 2:08 p.m. Suggest removal
licks2 says...
An appeal means that one of the parties is requesting that the decision in your case be looked at again by a higher court. In other words, they are arguing that something went wrong with the first decision and that it should be changed. In most cases, the appeals process is somewhat limited.
I hope you usually closed minded posters can read this point above. . .it is written at grade 4 level. . .this judge was over turned just last week in a case where she ruled there was no evidence to answer to. . .but the case was sent back for re-trial. The judge ruling don't make much sense to me either. . .but I am not on the court. . .however, the appeal courts are. . .they will decide if the judge was lucid enough for the proper ruling!! Now I saw in the papers where the same judge is hinting of recusing herself from the next upcoming PLP case. . .
Posted 15 February 2019, 4:11 p.m. Suggest removal
Log in to comment