A special Committee of up to 5 persons consisting of Members of the House of Assembly from each political party is to be established to decide the fate of the Speaker of the House of Assembly on whether he will be made to pay his $120,000 legal bill or if it will fall on taxpayers’ pockets.
This was revealed by Premier Andrew Fahie during Wednesday’s sitting of the House of Assembly as he laid the motion on the table to be debated.
The Premier said this special committee will be tasked with gathering all the evidence surrounding Speaker of the House Julian Willock’s legal case, which will include interviewing persons and assessing legal documents from a number of contracts and from the Supreme Court.
He said following the conclusion of this committee, a report will be submitted to the House of Assembly, where he will be advised according to the findings and conclusion of the report.
3 options to choose from
According to the premier, the committee will have three options to select from once a conclusion has been reached.
Namely: A, “there was no express permission by the House of Assembly, but Honourable Speaker acted in his official capacity and in good faith, relying on the assumption of permission being at least implied and consistent with his duty and the action is deemed warranted, and with merit and as a result the payment of course would be approved by the House of Assembly.”
The second option is, “there was no express permission by the House of Assembly, but the Honourable Speaker acted in his official capacity and in good faith, relying on the assumption of permission being at least implied and consistent with his duty and the action is deemed warranted and with Merit, but the payment of course cannot be approved or considered by the House of Assembly.”
The third option is, “there was no express permission by the House of Assembly, but the Honourable Speaker acted in his official capacity and in good faith, relying on the assumption of permission being at least implied and consistent with his duty. The action is not deemed warranted and it is without merit and as a result, the House of Assembly ought not to approve payment of the cost.”
Ensuring due process and not acting on emotions of the public
Premier Fahie said this motion, which was updated from last Thursday’s initial motion, is to allow for due process to occur, which he said will set a precedent for any similar occurrence in the future, while at the same time allowing the procedure to be fair and not one sided.
He said, “I also know from my own experience in life to always ensure due process. So that when a decision is made it’s not made out of emotions, it’s not made out of siding with anyone it’s not made out of a pressure, it’s not made out of bias, but is made out of having all the facts in front of you and having it properly laid out, so that the facts are clear so that it can stand the test of time.”
“That especially when it relates to the House of Assembly must be done by the House of Assembly because that is what the Public Finance Management Act dictates anyway. And as Minister of Finance, I have to ensure that my actions are directly in alignment with the Public Finance Management Act which calls for me not to make such decisions on my own for the House of Assembly when it comes to expenditure,” Premier Fahie added.
This committee will have up to two months to present their report back to the House of Assembly.
Meanwhile, both Opposition Leader Marlon Penn and Second District Representative Melvin “Mitch” Turnbull expressed their disapproval of this Committee.
They argued that it is an overreach of the judicial branch, which had already ruled on this matter, which should not have been brought to the House of Assembly.