Sinister plot afoot to silence Opposition MP

…matter only arising at special times to intimidate, harass – Edghill

There is a deliberate attempt to challenge Bishop (Juan) Edghill’s credibility by using this mechanism of a politically controlled committee to get an outcome, because the committee will eventually vote on if you are culpable.”
The disclosure of the sinister plot afoot was made by Bishop Edghill on Monday minutes after being informed by the Clerk of the National Assembly that the meeting of the Committee of Privileges before which he was summoned a week prior, had been cancelled with no explanations proffered.
The summons was issued on the heels of Edghill’s damaging exposé in recent weeks of massive corruption and deliberate avoidance of the Procurement Act and its accompanying processes involving billions of taxpayers’ dollars spent by the Administration unlawfully in the health sector, as well as blatant violations of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act in respect to spending by the Ministry of the Presidency and the Office of the Prime Minister.
In an invited comment following the close of Monday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, Edghill said: “This matter only seems to be arising at special times with a view of intimidating and harassing.”
According to Edghill, “I feel harassed; I feel like I am not being given an adequate opportunity to clear my name as it relates to this matter.”
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament (MP) was hauled before the Committee of Privileges after suggesting that the increases in salaries for members of the Executive would take a toll on the treasury to the tune of $1 billion annually.
The Committee last met on November 25 when Edghill presented his arguments in defence of his position.
He told media operatives at the very minimum, an explanation could have been provided as to why the meeting was cancelled and queried, “are we only going to have meetings of the Committee when all Government members can be present…if some members could not be present, then there is an intention already determined.”
He suggested that the Government side of the Committee wanted to ensure and keep command of its voting strength in that forum.
“There is an intention to ensure an outcome and [it] must be determined by the vote and that is what is very concerning to me,” Edghill said.
He noted that if it was a case of providing answers for clarity as was indicated in the summons then a simple quorum would have sufficed.
“Even if someone is absent, the verbatim records can be made available….if like the summons say was to answer questions, then three members form a quorum…I have been to committee in absence of Opposition members….I am prepared to go to committee once there is a quorum.”
Asked about possible sanctions that could be instituted against him by the Committee, Edghill said he was unsure as to what was planned, but was adamant that he could not be prevented from speaking in the National Assembly.
“I sit in the National Assembly not at the pleasure of the Speaker or Government.”
He told media operatives that as an elected member, the only way he could “be removed is through the electorate…. I can tell you definitely the Chief Justice has ruled that nobody can stop a Member of Parliament from speaking because the right to speak is on behalf of the people who elected you there.” He was making reference to the attempted gagging of then Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee – litigation that was thrown out by then acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
The former Junior Finance Minister declared, however, “what I am concerned about is you have a Committee here is 5/4 [four Opposition members to five Government members] and the Speaker is the Chairman.”
Edghill said he was wary of whatever instructions that would have been handed down to the Government members.