Email

Print

Hon. Kareem Musa, PUP - Caribbean Shores
"The Hon. Julius was very emotional, there was a back and forth and he did say something that offended the house speaker. Now, section 44 3 deals with when something offensive is said in the house and that is called the withdrawal of the member for the day's sitting. That is the particular section that the honorable house speaker should have applied and if I may read that section, it says "the speaker shall order any member to withdraw immediately from the house during the remainder of the day's sitting and may direct such steps to be taken as required to enforce such order: A) where the conduct of such member is grossly disorderly or B) where such a member has used objectionable abusive insulting or offensive words or language or unparliamentarily expressions and on being called to order has refuse to withdraw such words or language or expressions and has not offered an apology for the use thereof to the satisfaction of the house.""

"Now the two senior parliamentarians realized that Mike Peyrefitte was offended because he kept saying "I will not hear you honorable member, I don't want to hear from you, because of what you told me, you told me that I am being paid to block you." So he was offended. What we need to realize here is that the honorable member Hon. Julius wanted to apologize and that is what this section says, that you are to be offered the right to apologized and the house meeting, the business of the people is to continue. But the speaker was so irate, he was so offended that he decided to take a drastic step and so it's not the withdrawal because that withdrawal would have been for the day. He did not apply this section of the law. He went to naming a member which is not applicable in this situation, because this requires that Julius Espat, the member for Cayo South disregarded the authority of the speaker. For instance, had the speaker said 'honorable member desist from representation and sit down' and Julius continued with his presentation, then he shows he has disregard for the order of the house speaker. This section says and this is the one that deals with naming, this is the drastic measure employed by Mr. Peyrefitte - "if a member shows disregard for the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the house by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the house or otherwise, the speaker shall direct the attention of the house thereto mentioning by name the member concerned, the speaker shall then call upon a minister to move" and that Mr. Julius Espat be suspended from the services of the house."

"Now again, fought with irregularities. The procedure applied by Hon. Sedi Elrington and the speaker of the house fought with irregularities, because Sedi Elrington, the foreign minister did not call Julius Espat by name and that is what he was legally bound to do. After Mr. Elrington, if he had so complied with these rules and he had said the Hon. Julius Espat's name, it says that the speaker shall forthwith then put the question. Meaning he have to had put it to a vote. So after Sedi Elrington had said Julius Espat's name, if he had so done so, then Mike Peyrefitte ought to have put it to a vote to the house and say all those in favor of suspending Julius Espat say, I, all those against say, nay. That also was never done. Mike Peyrefitte picked up from his seat and abandoned his post."

So, what's the House Speaker's response to all this? Well, this afternoon, he spoke with us via telephone, and he told us that the PUP is unfairly accusing him of trying to muzzle them in the House on Friday, when that is the furthest thing from the truth. He told us that on Tuesday - three days before the House Meeting - he spoke with both Julius Espat and John Briceno via phone. He said that he attempted to do some housekeeping related to the Auditor General's reports because he knew that they would bring it up, and he wanted to ensure that they were keeping in line with the Standing Orders of the House. He said that he asked them if they were going to debate it, as soon as it was tabled or if they would choose to speak on it on the adjournment.

Peyrefitte told us that he was willing to allow them 4 bites at the cherry if they had decided to debate, since the Auditor General had produced 4 reports. He said that neither Briceno nor Espat could give him an immediate answer, and they promised to get back to him later in the week, but they never did. Peyrefitte said that they did agree that if they were going to debate it, they would allow the Minister of State Beverly Castillo to respond even though she is only a Minister of State.

He said that during the ejection of Julius Espat, Briceno came and spoke with him, and he told them that he was more than willing to allow them to return to the house and debate the report if they so choose. They walked out, and ended the House Meeting.

So, by his account, he bent over backwards to accommodate the Opposition to speak about the Auditor General's reports, so long as they followed the rules. He added that he was upset that they would now tell lies on him saying that he told Julius Espat not to bring up the Prime Minister the day before. He stressed that they spoke on Tuesday, and not on Wednesday or Thursday.