Editorial | What of impeachment bill, Wright motion?

Who remembers George Wright and the parliamentary censure motion against him? Or the bill for the impeachment of legislators that he caused to be resurrected? They all seem to be in a deliberately induced hibernation. That, we hope, is a misreading of events.

For those struggling with recall, seven months ago George Wright was a politically scandalous figure, who probably hoped for his issue to rapidly become Jamaica’s latest nine-day wonder. It started with a viral, grainy video of a man beating a woman – mostly with his fists, but at points with a stool.

That was followed, almost immediately, by claims that the beater was Mr Wright, then the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) member of parliament for Central Westmoreland. The woman, it was said, was Mr Wright’s partner, Tanisha Singh.

Mr Wright never denied the allegation, even when brought before the JLP brass. But neither has he explicitly confirmed the claims. The police, however, disclosed that on the eve of the video’s circulation, Mr Wright and Ms Singh separately made complaints of assault against each other. They, however, never followed up the process and declined to assist a police investigation. As a criminal complaint, the matter died.

The Wright saga erupted at a time of focus on gender-based violence in Jamaica. It happened at the time of a spate of apparently sex-related murders of women. Without naming Mr Wright, a female member of Parliament issued a cross-party statement condemning the video incident and of the broader problem of violence and sexual assault against women and girls. At the same time, the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) tabled a motion seeking to have Mr Wright censured and suspended from Parliament. That move was initially blocked by the Speaker, Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, who, a week later, reversed herself and allowed it to be tabled.

RESIGNED FROM JLP

In the meantime, facing calls for Mr Wright’s expulsion from the party, the JLP recommended, and facilitated, his request for leave of absence from the legislature for two months, while it continued to figure out what to do about his membership in the party. Mr Wright returned to Parliament a fortnight early, having ostensibly resigned from the JLP, and thus removed from the Government’s caucus in the House. He, nonetheless, was reported by the JLP to have declared his continued support for the party’s mission and the Government’s policies and programmes.

In the midst of the imbroglio, Mark Golding, the Opposition leader, reprised a bill from a decade earlier – from the time of the premiership of his namesake and former JLP leader, Bruce Golding – that would allow for legislators to be kicked out of Parliament if they were determined, by a special tribunal, to have conducted themselves in a manner that made them unfit for public office. The difference between Mark Golding’s bill and the earlier version is that his contains language that would make it applicable to the kind of behaviour of which Mr Wright was accused.

That bill, unfortunately, seems to have gone the way of most private members’ motions, or legislation that are not proposed by the Government. They usually wither away and die after an extended period of suspended animation. That should not be allowed to happen again to the impeachment bill. And not because of its association with the George Wright matter, but for the reason it was first proposed by Bruce Golding’s administration – as part of the response to Jamaica’s deep crisis of public corruption. Or, the enduring perception thereof.

CORRUPT

Upwards of 70 per cent of Jamaicans consistently say in opinion surveys that the island’s public officials are corrupt. Less than half have confidence in Parliament, politicians and all other institutions of the State, except the military. The not infrequent findings by oversight bodies of behaviour by public officials that seemingly fall afoul of regulations deepen the mistrust of politicians and the State bureaucracy. Dithering on legislation intended to address these issues only exacerbates the doubt and scepticism.

That is why the impeachment bill must be sent forthwith to a joint select committee for review and open hearings, giving the public an opportunity to have a say on whether the legislation is one that should be on the books, and offer ideas of how it should be shaped.

With respect to the George Wright censure motion, it was in May that Speaker Dalrymple-Philibert relented, allowing it to be tabled. There has not been a debate yet on whether the matter should be sent to the House ethics committee. In August, Edmund Bartlett, the leader of government business, said that debate would take place “in due course”, a probably deliberate imprecision designed to allow time for the matter to be forgotten.

That, if it is the intention, may be good politics, but bad for accountability and governance, and worse for public trust. Prime Minister Andrew Holness should impress on House Leader Bartlett and Speaker Dalrymple-Philibert the need to get the debate going. He should also get a move on the review of the impeachment bill.