IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY: Moultrie defends submission of boundaries report as constitutional

“This report has exceptional mitigating circumstances that make unanimity impossible”

NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Constituencies Commission Chairman and Speaker of the House of Assembly Halson Moultrie yesterday defended his submission of the commission’s report, which he solely signed, to the governor general, insisting it was necessary in the interest of democracy.

He was responding to a joint statement signed by commission co-chair Supreme Court Justice Deborah Fraser, Bamboo Town MP Renward Wells, Exumas and Ragged Island MP Chester Cooper and Marco City MP Michael Pintard, who charged that the boundaries report did “not represent what the majority of the commission’s members agreed to”.

Their letter urged the governor general to reject the report Moultrie submitted.

But Moultrie said it would be interesting to see who signs that letter, and questioned what constitutional grounds were submitted for the governor general’s rejection.

In a four-page statement, Moultrie said he was “deeply concerned and disappointed” and asserted it was the goal of the majority to silence dissenting voices.

He said he was not grandstanding, but followed the “directions of the Constitution in the interest of democracy”.

“While it may [be] the custom for such reports to be signed by all members, this report has exceptional mitigating circumstances that make unanimity impossible,” Moultrie said.

“There is no constitutional requirement for the signature of all members of the commission.”

Article 69(6) of the Constitution notes that “any decision of the commission shall require the concurrence of not less than three members of the commission”.

Moultrie said: “This is a proviso in the event unanimity cannot be attained. But there is no constitutional provision for the silencing of dissenting voices, which was the goal motivating the majority and another bone of contention in several meetings.”

He said the stalemate came about after the majority sought to acquire all five signatures in spite of dissenting views, which would give the false impression that the decision of the commission was unanimous.

Moultrie also indicated that the joint statement’s assertion that the commission must first give written notice to the prime minister of the intention to submit its report to the governor general is simply untrue.

He said Article 70(1) of the Constitution speaks to informing the prime minister in writing of the commencement of the commission’s work, not the conclusion.

Moultrie stressed that he complied with every provision of the Constitution.

He questioned where in the Constitution it indicates that a report is nullified if signed by one member alone.

“I find it curious that every argument proffered to defeat the Friday’s action by the chairman seeks a legal footing except this one,” he said.

“To the fictional writer of these two pages of misinformation, I will simply admonish: the facts are not necessarily the facts because you uttered such words and want them to be the facts.

“The facts should be based in some kind of authority. Please cite an authority other than yourself.”

To suggestions that Moultrie wanted his way from the beginning, the speaker said the minutes will reflect that he followed the Constitution from the beginning and “not the dictates of some person who has no business in the commission’s affairs and deliberations”.

He added that the commission, as a deliberate body, has a constitutional responsibility to examine the facts and arrive at a conclusion that is “judicious and consistent” with the mandate of the Constitution.

Add New Playlist

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?
Hide picture