As reported in this edition of The Anguillian, the Second Nominated Member in the Anguilla House of Assembly, Miss Keesha Webster, delivered a statement about the court case in which she is involved. The following is a report of comments made in the House during her delivery by Opposition Member, Hubert Hughes, Speaker David Carty, Chief Minister Osbourne Fleming as well as Miss Webster herself.

Early during the delivery of her statement, Mr. Hughes rose and addressed the Speaker “on a point or order.” He said: “If there is a case in court, I think this House is not qualified to have subjudice being a part of it. Thank you.”

Miss Webster replied: “If it pleases you, Mr. Speaker, my statement this morning in no way touches or affects my case in court. It does, however, affect my position in this House and therefore I believe I have standing and would wish to proceed with my statement. Thank you.” She was allowed to do so.

There was a second interruption by Mr. Hughes later on and he was allowed to express himself by the Speaker. “I have been in the House for almost 30 years, and I think I have a clear idea of Rules of Procedure governing a House,” he commented. “Several times statements were made in this House in relationship to property disputes between people and I think that since there is a case in the court, and I believe that the Honourable Member is innocent, I think it is not fitting for the Honourable Member to have to come to the House and try to impress us that she is innocent because we feel that she is innocent.

“I think it is not protocol, as far as the House is concerned, to have her case discussed in this House because in her role she is two persons. She is one person in the House and, as far as the law relating to issues of the court, she is another person; and I don’t think the House should be used for such a dialogue; and I leave it to your discretion, Mr. Speaker, thank you.”

Just as Miss Webster was about to respond, Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming, addressed the Speaker as follows: “I just want to say this. I think that the Honourable Member has a right, if she wants to express herself; and I don’t think that the Member for Road South [Mr. Hughes] is right. This is the House of Assembly. If I want to make a statement, I make it. She is making a statement and I believe she should be allowed to make her statement. Please, leave her alone.”

The Speaker replied: “There is a question of privilege and you [Mr. Hughes] is right that the matter is before the court; but so long as the Member does not refer to the actual charges that, or the issues, or the points being brought to the court, I think I will have to allow her the privilege that she and you and everyone else has in this House to say their piece. This is the House of Assembly and you are covered by privilege and the ancient rules of this House are that every member be allowed to speak his or her mind without fear or favour.

“I think it would be inappropriate for the House to debate the issues that the statement raises, but I do believe that on a point of privilege, there is little we can do to prevent a member from making a statement. Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Hughes?”

Replying Mr. Hughes said Miss Webster had referred to a charge against her “of theft of $500 and she has defended her name that she is not in the offence of having stolen $500 in accordance with that charge.” He went on: “I think that no privilege can allow sub judice in the House of Assembly or anywhere else. As far as privilege of the House of Commons is concerned, it is not allowed; and I cannot see why this should be allowed in the House in Anguilla. We cannot condemn somebody because only the court can condemn them.

“People are considered innocent in British law until they are proved guilty and I have no record in all my readings of British Constitution that such an issue allows you the privilege in the House, when other people are not permitted to respond. Mr. Speaker, I think it is inappropriate, but if you want to go according to certain privileges which you are privy to, which I am not, I would like to know in which journal or which constitution such privilege is established.”

The Speaker had this to say: “I am not privy to anything, Member for Road South. I am only concerned with the absolute right of the parliament in this and in other democratic society for members to have the right to say what they feel. You, sir, have exercised that right time and time again in your long tenure in this House without any interference or any right of response from anyone outside of this Chamber. I do not think that I have the power, unless somebody can show me in our Rules of Procedure – and our Rules of Procedure govern the law in this House, where I can prevent the Member from saying what she has to say.”

The member for Road South denied ever making a statement defending himself in any way. He said he had always taken motions to the House that were debatable.

“That was not my point, Member,” the Speaker replied. “My point was simply that you have exercised your privilege as a Member of this House to speak freely and that is the point on which I am basing my thoughts process. Every member of this House has a privilege to say what he or she likes without fear or favour; and I do not think that I have the power to prevent that.”

The dialogue continued:

Mr. Hughes: “Mr. Speaker, the Rules of Procedure say that the motion must be brought to this House 72 hours of a meeting.”

Speaker: “This is not a motion.”
Mr. Hughes: “If it is not a motion, then it cannot be debated.”
Speaker: “It was on the Order Paper and it is not being debated. It is an unofficial statement by a Member.”

Mr. Hughes: “Mr. Speaker, do as you please.”
The Speaker asked Miss Webster to proceed. “I trust that I will not be interrupted again,” she commented just before resuming the delivery of her statement. “I do thank the Honourable Member of the House for joining with me in the confidence that I am innocent.”

Following the end of her statement, Chief Minister Fleming commented: “I just want to say that we are colleagues in this House and we stick together, support each other. I know that Miss Webster’s contribution today was not open for debate, but we just want to say that on behalf of my colleagues, I want to tell Miss Webster that we are colleagues, we are together and we support each other. And to that end we so support you.”

The House of Assembly then continued with the other matters on the Order Paper.

Meanwhile, Barrister-at-Law, Thomas Astaphan, at whose Chambers Miss Webster worked as a Lawyer, had no comment to make saying the matter was sub judice and had nothing to do with him.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News