Tweet
HENLEY MORGAN
There is a strange situation being played out between two of Jamaica's most promising and powerful elected officials, Finance and Public Service Minister Audley Shaw and Member of Parliament for Central Manchester and PNP General Secretary Peter Bunting.
To fathom the gravity of what transpired in Parliament on May 21, 2008, one must first examine the background to the saga. It started with Mr Shaw charging that Mr Bunting in his former role as chairman of the investment company, Dehring Bunting and Golding (DB&G), had benefited from a "sweetheart deal" from the then PNP government of which Bunting was a member and an aspiring politician. The charge, made under the protective cover of parliamentary privilege, related to the provision of short-term financing to the government against the sale of Finsac receivables for which DB&G was rewarded handsomely.
Bunting was incensed by the charge. He said Shaw had breached Standing Orders with the intent of misleading the House, and demanded that he withdraw his remarks or face sanctions. Shaw raised the ante when he returned to the House with documents to support his assertions of the transaction between DB&G and the then government. Based on the evidence, Mr Shaw laid a counter charge that it was Mr Bunting who was misleading the House and sought to refer the matter to the Privilege Committee of Parliament.
Parliament polices the actions of members of the Lower and Upper House through two committees. The Ethics Committee examines impropriety of members including conflicts of interest and the like. The Privilege Committee does exactly what the name says: examines violations of privileges of the House and its members. One of the most egregious violations is for a member to make deliberately misleading statements. No member wants to end up here, as the Privilege Committee could recommend suspension or dismissal of the member from the House.
Given the apparent importance Mr Shaw attached to Mr Bunting's role in the so-called sweetheart deal and the misleading statement the member made in his defence, one would reasonably expect that the "case" would be heading for the Privilege Committee on a motion by the House. <span style="font-weight: bold">Fast-forward to May 21, 2008. According to one newspaper report, a motion was moved in the House to have the two men "resolve the row on the floor of Parliament, without having to refer the matter to the Privilege Committee". </span><span style="font-style: italic">In a statement to the House, Bunting said there was a misunderstanding on his part as to the transaction the minister was referring to, apologised to him and withdrew his earlier charge that the minister had misled the House. Mr Shaw kindly reciprocated</span>.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Government MP Everald Warmington, probably failing to read the play, strenuously rejected the manner in which Bunting was being let off the hook</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold">At that point, Andrew Gallimore, acting leader of government business, said Shaw, Bunting and House Speaker Delroy Chuck had agreed that Bunting's withdrawal of the accusing statement against Shaw would signal the end of the matter.</span> <span style="font-style: italic">A motion to that effect was tabled and passed with Warmington's dissent.</span>
The last time I recall a member being brought before the Privilege Committee was about a year ago when then Opposition member Karl Samuda had a censorship motion brought against him about statements made in regard to the Sandals Whitehouse expenditure overrun. That issue fell off the Order Paper upon the dissolution of Parliament to make way for the general elections. One need not assume that anything underhand was done to facilitate the death of the issue. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how many sanctions against members have resulted from matters referred to these two disciplinary oversight committees over the last decade. Way back during the Michael Manley years, was Mr Seaga not sanctioned for speaking ill about the country? There may have been a few others in prehistoric times, but certainly not many.
But let's go back to the Shaw versus Bunting saga. The principle worth examining is encapsulated by the following questions. (1) Does the compromise worked out on the floor of Parliament make the original charge brought by Mr Shaw any less serious or less deserving of examination? (2) Without his day in court, so to speak, and an opportunity to exonerate himself, will Mr Bunting not continue to be dogged by the charge which was widely broadcast to the public? (3) If the feisty contractor general should decide to exercise his own powers and look into the matter, could the findings not come back to haunt Mr Shaw? (4) Might the public not think that the real "sweetheart deal" is the one worked out by politicians from opposing sides of the House for the one to protect the other and for both to save face?
The song and dance between Mr Shaw and Mr Bunting followed by quiet suggests that the two could very well be the strangest of bedfellows.
[email protected]