Speaker Larry Joseph

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Lawrence Joseph, says that if given the chance to rule on the matter which led to the recent walk-out from Parliament by the Opposition, he will do it all over again.

 In an unprecedented move to speak with reporters at a press conference on Tuesday, the House Speaker said that he stands firmly behind the decision he made during debate on the 2007 Budget, not to allow substantial debate on the "Briefcase issue" since he regarded it as sub-judice.

He spoke of taking the unusual decision to issue a statement on the Opposition walk-out from Parliament due to the many public comments on the issue in the media.

He was hopeful that the public will now become more enlightened, and have a better appreciation of the role of the Presiding Officer in the Parliamentary setting. The Opposition members staged the walk-out from the chambers on December 20, 2006, when the Speaker ordered  Parliamentary Representative for the Town of St George, Peter David, not continue delving too deep into the "briefcase issue" matter concerning an alleged bribe that was paid to Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell in 2000.

According to Joseph, the Opposition Member, despite the advice of the Chair continued along the same pattern, in an attempt to show how Attorney General,  Elvin Nimrod could have arranged to receive evidence to assist the ongoing Commission of Inquiry into the briefcase scandal.
Joseph said that as a result of David's persistence he adjourned the meeting of the House for 10 minutes and invited both the Government and Opposition sides to meet with him in his Chambers to discuss the approach.

He said that he explained to members that in his opinion, "if a member is attempting to show how certain evidence in the on-going Commission of Inquiry ought to have been obtained by the Attorney General, this attempt by the Member offends the core of the sub-judice principle".

The speaker noted that there was absolutely no objections to his summing up of the meeting and he concluded that when Parliament resumed M.P David would no longer attempt to show how the AG could obtain the evidence for the Inquiry.

According to the House Speaker, the principle which he relied upon was based on Standing Order 38 (1) which stated that, "Reference shall not be made to any matter which is "sub-judice" in such a way as might in the opinion of the Chair prejudice the interests of the parties thereto".

He said "when a matter is "sub-judice", it means that matter is awaiting the adjudication of a Court of Law or the decision of a judicial inquiry. The Speaker disclosed that when Minister of Agriculture and Energy, Gregory Bowen spoke on the matter relating to a Court in the United States, in which he is a party in the Jack Grynberg affair, he allowed it since the matter related to a non-domestic Court and was not subjected to the sub judice principle.

He said that Prime Minister Mitchell was not stopped when he was speaking about certain judgements in the United States against M.P David since the matter was no longer awaiting adjudication and are not matters connected with a domestic Court.

Joseph also posed and answer the following question:  "One may ask the question, why was the Prime Minister subsequently allowed to speak on the Briefcase matter when the Member for the Town of St, George was stopped from dealing with it?"

He said that the Prime Minister's references to the matter did not prejudice the interest of anybody, especially in light of the fact that Dr. Mitchell himself is the main subject in the inquiry.

The Speaker argued that the attempts made to say that the Commission of Inquiry into the Briefcase matter is closed and as such matters relating to it cannot be seen as sub-judice is not correct since it is still ongoing.

"As long as the Governor General has not officially put an end to the Inquiry, it may proceed at any time", he said. "It is also my understanding that a Court matter relating to the same inquiry and initiated by Leader of the Opposition is presently before the Court of Appeal. The Commission of Inquiry as I understand it, has not been finally determined," he added.

Joseph also refuted allegations that he has a bias for the government side since he once held a number of key ministerial positions with the administration. He said the mere fact that a Speaker has or had some relationship with the ruling party does not make the Speaker bias or showing favour to the ruling party.

He added that a lot depends on the objectivity, and impartiality  of the individual concerned. "This is what is expected and this is how I view my mandate in keeping with my oath of office", he remarked.

The Speaker felt that the Opposition walk-out from Parliament might have been prompted by some other reason. He suggested that a planned Candle Light vigil by the Opposition on the day of the walk-out might have contributed to their decision to leave Parliament.

Joseph said:  "The incident raises the question, why is it that the Budget Debate was ongoing and it is general knowledge that the daily debate sometimes goes up to 9 o'clock at night, yet the opposition scheduled a candlelight meeting in the Town of St George at 7:00 p.m. on the same day of the walk-out, in the midst of the Budget Debate?"

He stressed that "when the Speaker makes a ruling, despite the differences of opinion that members may have that the Speaker's ruling ought to be obeyed by all members.