More Post-Election Notes

by Craig Butler

The suspension of contracts awarded by the former PLP government before the May general election is a dangerous precedent being set by the new FNM government.

It matters not who the government is at the time of the awarding of a contract. What matters is that we must be confident in the fact that the government has the authority to enter into contractual negotiations with whomever they please.

The FNM stated that the PLP entered into some $80 million worth of contracts shortly before the election. They promised to review the same on taking office, and they have indeed attempted to do just that.

However, more accountability is needed for the Bahamian people to be fully informed as to why these reviews are being carried out. Senator Jerome Fitzgerald had accused the new government of creating an atmosphere of intimidation. As long as questions remain unanswered this statement will be seen to be meritorious.

These contracts are binding, and can be terminated only pursuant to the contract. Otherwise the government could face legal proceedings in respect of the breach. That is usually done at a cost, however. In relation to the straw market Senator Fitzgerald said there is a $10,000 "liquidated damages clause" attached. This is just a nice way of framing what is in essence a penalty clause.

This government in the sunshine has promised to be open and frank and to take care of the public purse. Letting some $300,000-plus dollars be frittered away without any word to the Bahamian people is not what I expect.

So please, prime minister, if you have reason to believe that these or any other contracts were entered into by dubious means then tell us and take all necessary legal action that is merited. If not, allow the work to commence.

The PLP

Recently the leader of the opposition was quoted as saying that the PLP had accepted the results of the last general election.

I would like to commend the PLP for their participation during the recent debate on the budget. It matters little whether or not you agreed with what they had to say, what is important is that you saw our parliamentary democracy in full swing.

At many points during the debate it became heated and there was a lot of banter back and forth across the aisles as to who provided better governance for the country. The behaviour at times of members from both sides left much to be desired and in that respect I would remind the good members that the people - especially the youth of the nation - are watching.

I hope that the PLP take their role as the opposition as seriously through this full term as they have demonstrated that they are prepared to do at the outset. This can only lead to better government.

Former prime minister Perry Christie also discussed various legal options open to the PLP. This has resulted in the filing of three petitions in the election court to overturn vote counts in the Pinewood, Marco City and Blue Hills constituencies.

These matters, due to their nature, are treated with the utmost urgency and based on the present situation and the make up of the House of Assembly that is only fitting. If these three petitions were to succeed, the governor-general would be duty bound to call on Perry Christie to form a new government.

In addition the PLP has said it will challenge the appointment of Tanya Wright as a senator. I don’t think that this is because anyone doubts her ability or worthiness, but rather what her political allegiance lies.

The prime minister is given powers by the constitution to appoint the three remaining persons to the Senate whether or not he and the Leader of the Opposition have agreed. The constitution only mandates that he consult.

The question to be determined by the court would be what is meant by Article 40 of the Constitution which states ‘In exercise of the functions conferred upon him by Article 39(4) of this Constitution, the purpose of the Prime Minister shall be to secure that the political balance of the Senate reflects that of the House of Assembly at the time.’

Nowhere does it say that even in a closely divided House, such as we presently have, is the prime minister to abrogate his duty to the Leader of the Opposition. In the circumstances, the appointment of Michael Halkitis cannot be questioned as he was a former PLP Member of the House in the last session. This leaves us with the lingering question of whether the appointment of Tanya Wright means that the balance of the Senate is not secure.

These are some interesting times and I look forward to watching the legal arguments unfurl. I feel as though the PLP have misread the people and would have been better suited to just get on with it. That said, should they prevail and then form the next government, I will be the first to stand up and state that I was wrong.

Political Appointees

It must be hard to lose a job especially when on the face of it there is no reason. However we have to understand the political process and realize that to the victor goes the spoils.

Protocol dictates that government appointees tender their resignations on the defeat of that government. Indeed, Fr. James Moultrie wrote recently to correct any misunderstanding that may have been created by an article written by Sir Arthur Foulkes on this subject.

Moultrie said that when the FNM attained power in 1992 he submitted his resignation, but heard nothing immediately and sometime later was informed via telephone that he was being recalled. Or, to state it more bluntly, he was fired.

There has been much said about the chairmanship of the Bank of the Bahamas and the unceremonious way in which Alfred Jarrett was asked to leave. Uncouth handling of situations should never arise, but appointees should also never allow themselves to be put in this position and the protocol should be closely followed.

Remember the protocol only calls for the tendering of the resignation it does not mean that the new government would accept the same.