Government legislator Daryl Vaz on Tuesday moved a censure motion against Opposition Leader Mark Golding over a comment he made on a political platform in St Andrew East Rural on Sunday.
The motion came at the adjournment of the sitting of the House of Representatives when Vaz argued that Golding sought to “aid, counsel and procure the commission of an offence of impersonation” in breach of Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.
He said that Golding’s words were to “incite and encourage” supporters of the opposition People’s National Party (PNP) to engage in an offence of impersonation by voting in the names of dead electors.
During a party meeting on Sunday, Golding urged all PNP supporters in St Andrew East Rural who had voted in the 2011 general elections to also cast ballots in the next polls, before adding: “Even some who not alive, you know if dem can deal with it, no problem.”
Vaz said Golding’s utterances sought to undermine the Constitution and democratic process of the country to ensure free and fair elections and that the comments render him incapable of being in the Lower House. He said that the matter must be referred to a committee of the House for “suitable action” if Golding failed to apologise.
Golding was not present when the motion was being moved.
He said that if Golding were to be named, other members on the government side, too, must be named for similar utterances and conduct.
“I urge the members on that side, sometimes don’t try to make sense out of nonsense and make it political for your own purposes,” said Phillips.
St Andrew South Western Member of Parliament Dr Angela Brown Burke challenged that Vaz’s motion was not based on facts.
She said that unlike a government minister allegedly breaking the road code or an MP allegedly caught on camera abusing a woman, Golding’s comment was not a cause for concern.
Earlier, the House descended into chaos after Vaz and colleague legislator James Robertson sought to reprimand Golding for the comment.
Golding sought to question Deputy Speaker Juliet Holness about the tabling of the Auditor General Department’s (AuGD) reports on the National Works Agency and other public bodies, which were being withheld, pending an opinion from the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Golding said that the Opposition did not agree with the decision, noting that House Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, in previous weeks, had deviated from the established practice of tabling reports sent from the AuGD to Parliament, and was acting based on her view of the law.
“It’s quite inappropriate and wrong and I want to register my strongest objection to this way of processing. I can’t understand why on a matter of such fundamental importance the Attorney General’s Chambers has not delivered this opinion to the Parliament and I’m calling on them to do so without further delay,” said Golding.
But Holness said while a “draft” report has been presented, it is not a final report.
Vaz, the minister of science, energy, telecommunications, and transport indicated that Golding had no moral authority to speak until he clarified the dead voters comment and apologise.
Golding took issue with Vaz’s point, insisting that it had nothing to do with the questions he raised about the tabling of the reports. He argued that there was no basis for Vaz’s statement and that it was an abuse of parliamentary procedures.
Phillips argued along the same lines on a point of order, but Holness noted that the process was one of equity. She said that in the same manner Golding was allowed to speak Vaz would be allowed to.
Vaz then said his statement was relevant because Golding touched on constitutional matters in asking about the report. He said that Golding’s platform comment was unacceptable, and that some opposition MPs had communicated that to him.
However, Phillips, who again rose on a point of order, rebuked Vaz’s comments and insisted that he identified opposition members whom he claimed colluded with him to make the demand for Golding to apologise.
“The member said that members on this side colluded with him for him to make the statement that he did, and he needs to provide the proof or withdraw that forthwith,” said Phillips.
However, his point of order was met with strong resistance from Robertson, the St Thomas Western member of parliament, who demanded that Golding withdraw the comments made outside of the Lower House and apologise.
Robertson threatened to move a censure motion against the opposition leader if this was not done.
As Holness pushed to get control of the House, both members of the government and opposition benches hammered each other.
Holness then urged all members to sit and mute their microphones, and instructed the House marshal to name any member who did not obey her instructions.
Phillips, who was then allowed to continue, scolded the deputy speaker, telling her that she had allowed the House to descend into a “circus” and that she was “abusing” her authority.
“We’re actually making a mockery of the Parliament,” said Phillips, who was challenged by Holness to “stop right there”.
Phillips ignored Holness’ directive and continued to speak over the deputy speaker.
Holness ordered Phillips to sit but the Manchester North Western MP defied the command, insisting that he wanted to be heard.
Phillips ultimately yielded, as t Catherine South Western MP Everald Warmington urged Holness to have the marshal name him.
“I am going to,” Holness responded, while demanding that Phillips withdraw the statement if he could not show proof that she was not “even-handed and balanced” as deputy speaker.
“And I do not appreciate for a moment that you would want to make a statement in this honourable House relegating us to a circus and a kangaroo court. Please desist from making such statements. It is not necessary in order for you to make your point. If you get up and repeat it again, I am going to ask the marshal to name you,” Holness warned, insisting that she has been “fair” and ought not to be “abused”.
Phillips then noted that Golding had already responded to the public outcry about the dead voters comment.
He said that Golding asked about the reports as an issue of governance amid the now-contentious matter of when reports submitted to Parliament are tabled.
But Holness countered, noting that Golding “opened the floodgates” to being questioned on his authority as opposition leader after asking questions and leading into constitutional matters. She said that he made statements “that do not abide by the Constitution”.
The deputy speaker then acknowledged Brown Burke, who insisted that the Opposition would not be “bullied” by the governing side. She said the question on which Vaz rose had nothing to do with the activities of the Parliament.
The MP said it is not common for things said on the political platform to be brought to Parliament and referred to a comment made by Holness last year that anywhere across the city that had a dump, supporters of the opposition party lived there.
“It was a lie, but I can’t answer it in the Parliament,” Holness interjected.
But Brown Burke continued the point, noting that no opposition member took liberty of what was not allowed by her as deputy speaker.
Holness said that she would respond to Brown Burke outside of the Parliament, pointing out that the opposition member used the protection of Parliament to “lie”.
Vaz insisted that Golding brought the three positions he holds – as MP, Leader of Opposition and leader of a national party – into disrepute.
