By RASHAD ROLLE
Tribune Staff Reporter
rrolle@tribunemedia.net
MONTAGU MP Richard Lightbourn shot down a legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney General that dismisses the legality of the Public Accounts Committee to summon the Urban Renewal co-chairs as part of the PAC’s investigation into the programme.
Mr Lightbourn, a member of the PAC, said the opinion is flat out “wrong” and he expressed surprise at how quickly the Office of the Attorney General prepared the document.
The legal opinion said that the PAC’s request that Auditor General Terrance Bastian’s audit of Urban Renewal encroached on the auditor general’s constitutional independence.
The opinion also said the PAC has not followed proper procedures in exercising its authority to summon people to give interviews as part of its investigations.
“That the AG’s office would take it upon itself to give an opinion with regard to something that was in the public forum seems unwarranted to me,” Mr Lightbourn said. “As far as I’m aware, no one had requested them to investigate the matter.
“I’m very surprised that they would’ve commented at all on it. I’m also surprised that they were able to pass an opinion in such rapid time bearing in mind the other serious issues they seem unable to deal with, including the (V Alfred) Gray matter, which they’ve had for a couple of days; and the oil spill matter that they’ve had for months but didn’t find it necessary to pass comment on.”
Mr Lightbourn was referring to the police investigation into allegations of judicial interference against Mr Gray, the minister of agriculture. Last week, that file was turned over to the attorney general who has not commented on the matter since then. Last week it was also revealed that the government did not release an independent report into the 2012 underground Rubis fuel leak for more than a year on advice from the Office of the Attorney General.
As for the substantive points raised in the legal opinion, Mr Lightbourn said: “Personally, we’ve had input from persons with a lot of political experience, including senior lawyers and the general view is that the opinion from the attorney general’s office was totally inaccurate, but we will have to leave any argument to the validity of their opinion to the moment when we could find out whether the co-chairs of the Urban Renewal intend to ignore the request that the speaker sent to them.”
He added: “If it were improper to request that the auditor general do the audit, so what? The auditor is aware of his obligations and responsibilities but he in any event was investigating the matter on his own without the request of the PAC so he accepted the request. We didn’t demand that he do it. If we felt he was unable to pass comment or to conduct an investigation surely the simple thing would have been for him to say he wouldn’t do it. But he was in any event conducting the investigation.”
In a statement to The Tribune, Rick Lowe, vice-president of think-tank the Nassau Institute, urged the attorney general to take a principled stance in addressing the matter by allowing the PAC’s investigation into the use of public funds to continue.
“The Attorney General Allyson Gibson appears to have attempted to strike a fatal blow to the investigation into possible fraud/financial abuses at Urban Renewal with her legal opinion about the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) request to interview the co-chairs about the auditor general’s report,” he said.
“It appears the attorney general’s recommendations quashes any chance that the truth will be known about the alleged abuses of tax dollars. I trust the attorney general is not suggesting because there might be procedural errors there is no need to continue the investigation into the reported abuses. Quite the contrary, she should be suggesting the procedural errors, if they actually exist, are to be corrected, and the report presented to the House of Assembly, so the process can continue. Frankly, the appearance of one rule for parliamentarians and government agencies and another for ‘Joe Public’ is sickening. Surely principle should trump technicalities in this case? There is still time for the attorney general to advise that the government take a principled stand against the alleged fraud and bring those responsible for any corruption to account.”
Comments
duppyVAT 8 years, 12 months ago
The AG Office is being used as a political bludgeon by the PLP ........... this is not the role of the AG Office under the Westminster system .......... An AG should be theoretically an apolitical post to offer impartial legal advice to the government and interpret legal positions of the government on constitutional matters that impact internal and external matters.
This is plain public political delay tactics used by the AG Officeto frustrate the Opposition and the citizenry ............. Nolle, VAG probe, BAMSI, BOB, BEC, BTC 2%, PAC and now RUBIS ...................... this blatant political interference must stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TruthHurts 8 years, 12 months ago
I'm with you Duppy! I was a few sentences in when I was like this is some straight up BS! I am really disappointed in all parties involved; especially Braves comment on how the accountant was being lambasted after the report was made.
jackbnimble 8 years, 12 months ago
Nobody will ever be forced to resign or be fired no matter how blatant the political crime - certainly not under Christie's administration (of course this with the exception of the "fall guy" for the LOI, Wells). The bigger the "ka-huna" (Mother Pratt, Gray, etc.) the bigger the cover up. No shock here.
Economist 8 years, 12 months ago
What was the criteria when Sim Bowe resigned or Ervin Knowles resigned? Anyone know?
duppyVAT 8 years, 12 months ago
ask AD Hanna or Arthur Foulkes ............... if they can remember
Well_mudda_take_sic 8 years, 12 months ago
Here we once again see the AG's Office being misused and abused by the AG (Allyson Maynard-Gibson) with the objective of shielding and providing political cover for serious transgressions of incompetent appointees and corrupt supporters of the Christie-led administration. Maynard-Gibson has time and time again acted in a way that should leave her stripped of the protections afforded her Office by our Constitution. She has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness to egregiously abuse the AG's Office to the detriment of the Bahamian people. The Bahamian people should be insisting with a mighty voice that she be held accountable for her many egregious acts as AG, and equally egregious failures to properly act in accordance with the requirements and decorum expected of her Office. When the time is right her many instances of misconduct as AG should be made the subject of a full and proper investigation and hopefully that time is not too far off now.
licks2 8 years, 11 months ago
That decision did not come from the AG office. . . and signed by nobody! Persons who are familiar with written opinions submitted by the AG knows full well that each submission is signed by the researching officer on an official AG letter head. That opinion document itself did not follow customary judicial protocol in obtaining opinions from the AG office.
Further more, Article 136 (4) states that the A-G shall submit his reports made under paragraph (3) of this Article without delay to the Speaker of the House. . . who shall cause them to be laid before the HOU without undue delay[sic].
That's is the long and short of the Article. . .therefore, the "ghost" AG opinion itself ultra vires and exceeds the letter and convolutes the spirit of the law. Further, the PAC is a organ of the HOU. . .ruled by the speaker. . .who can lay the report before the HOU before he presents it to his PAC or at the same time of presentation have the HOU PAC review the findings by calling persons before that body to review the A-G findings. . .because HOU cannot call members of the public for further information.
After the A-G presents his reports to the speaker, according to Constitution, the speaker must present it to the HOU as soon as possible. . . and he is within his constitutional mandate if he allows the PAC, a confirmation/clarification body within the parameter of the HOU, under the Constitutional responsibility of the speaker!!
The term used for presentation of the A-G report to HOU is "without undue delay". . .not "without delay"! PAC can be that "due delay" THAT MUST BE DONE BEFORE THE REPORT IS PRESENTED BEFORE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE!!
That principle was the same opinion used by the AG when she was pressed on the late presentation of the Rubis report. . .we had to check some things before she made the findings public!!!
Well_mudda_take_sic 8 years, 11 months ago
Keep it simple: The Attorney-General (Allyson Maynard-Gibson) is royally pissed that a draft yet to be signed legal opinion prepared by her Office (presumably with her knowledge and blessing) somehow made its way to Dr. Bernard Nottage who in turn hand delivered it to the Speaker of The House. We won't hold our breath though waiting for Dr. Nottage to shed some light on how he came to be in possession of the legal opinion. Safe to say though, It does seem quite plausible (if not obvious) that the intent of the draft opinion was to intimidate the House Speaker without the AG and her Office taking any responsibility for the scandalous intimidation tactic.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID