« The Road to a National Development Plan is Paved with Good Intentions | Main | Parliamentary Privilege and Everette Bannister in the Bahamas »

May 11, 2016


Stephen Knowles

Can't wait until tomorrow!

Simon Rodehn

If a member of Parliament showed up in the house and took a severed head of some poor fool out and declared that he knew who had done it but was not going to say because he had parliamentary privilege it would be obvious that a crime had been committed. No one would have any doubt since a severed head is something people can easily see is the result of criminality as someone has been deprived of their right to life. The person producing it knows where they got it and as such is at least culpable of accessory after the fact if not more. As such the police would definitely get involved to determine the facts. I don't think the police would hesitate for one minute past getting over their shock to arrest the member and haul him away for interrogation.
In the case we have been hearing about the parliamentarian and the emails the situation is precisely the same as there has been criminality in the acquisition of these emails but here the public doesn't readily see the crime and neither do the police it would appear. The action of divulging private financial information is a breach of constitutional rights to privacy which is a crime that trumps parliamentary privilege.

Geoffrey Treco

The weak link in this whole matter is the incompetence of the Speaker of the House, Kendal Major MP. The Speaker is seemingly unaware that he occupies a seat that is integral to the good and proper governance of the Bahamas. He demonstrated that he is poorly equipped to manage the affairs of the HOA in this matter of Parliamentary Privilege. It is simply not enough to don the regalia of office. The occupant must have caution and knowledge. And if in doubt, request that Members desist until he can research and take advice.

Charles Christofilis

When a lawyer is admitted to the Bar, he/she becomes an officer of the Court and is subject to discipline by The Court, except for criminal conduct. It is similar to the privilege of Parliamentarians who are elected by the people. The motion by The House of Assembly to punish an attorney for his/her functioning as an officer of the Court will have a chilling effect on the right to counsel and would constitute a political interference with the functioning of the judicial branch of government.

In the same way that the Parliamentarians are claiming that the judicial branch of government is interfering with the legislative branch of government , they are now interfering with the functioning of the judicial branch of government. I think we have the makings of a constitutional issue here.

The English Parliament's taxation without the representation of The American Colonies led to an armed revolt and violence. I noticed that one of the Parliamentarians was alleged to have mentioned that Parliament executed King Charles I. Indeed they did, as set forth in your article. He failed to point out that the 59 Parliamentarians who signed The Writ of Execution of The King went into hiding after the Restoration of The Crown with his son Charles II, who then proceeded to hunt down the remaining regicides all over England and Europe and kill them over the next 25 years of his reign.

The Parliamentarians who signed The Writ of Execution for Charles i were lawyers mostly. The recent book "Killers of The King" by Charles Spencer describes it well. It does not appear that the current situation will end well - like killing a King of England by Parliament. It has happened before when a bunch of Parliamentarian lawyer hot heads let their egos get in the way of rational judgement and fail to consider fully the consequences of their actions. Instead, they should be acting in the best interests of the country and not their own self interests. That's what they were elected for.


The Civil War ended in 1649. Hostilities ended two years later.

larry smith

The first civil war ended in 1646, with the defeat and imprisonment of the king. The second civil war began in 1648, when the king tried to reverse his defeat with Scottish help. He was defeated again in 1649, tried for treason and executed. A third civil war ensued when royalist forces revolted in Ireland and Scotland. Cromwell finally defeated the royalists in 1651.

larry smith

I agree with Chas Christofilis' initial comments, but have no sympathy for his sentiments about kings and regicides.

The English civil war was won by the parliamentarians and was a big step on the road to democracy. Charles would not accept the situation and suffered the consequences. There should have been no restoration and the regicides were heroes/martyrs in my view.

Use to work for Nygard

Fred Mitchell and the PLP are Peter Nygard's buddies, everyone in the Nygard house hold knows that. He is the sickest man I've ever had the displeasure of working for. And the PLP will also go down with him. They will bend over at will and let Peter Nygard do whatever he pleases to them for money.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan


  • Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback. You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.

Email this blog

Global Village

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2005

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner