 Whereas on Tuesday, the 2nd of May 2023, the member for Mikus South was found in breach of Standing Order 43-4. And whereas the House of Assembly, utilizing Standing Orders 43-4 and 43-6, voted to suspend the member for Mikus South until, I quote, an apology to the House and the withdrawal of the offending words cited by the presiding officer who were undertaken. And whereas the House of Assembly is fully satisfied that the suspension was lawful and in keeping with the Standing Orders, and whereas members of the House of Assembly do not wish for the constituency of Mikus South to be without representation in the House of Assembly, be it resolved that the House of Assembly agrees to the lifting of the suspension without prejudice to the legal action by the member for Mikus South against the suspension and be it for the resolve that the lifting of the suspension shall be effective immediately following the passage of this motion and the member will be at liberty to carry on his duties in service of the House and the constituency of Mikus South. Mr. Speaker, as cited in the motion, it is stated that the member of Mikus South was found in breach of Standing Order 43-4. And Mr. Speaker, in your preamble, you stated the conditions under which the honourable member was allowed in the House today. And it was very instructive, the words that you use, that the honourable member has taken action against this honourable House in the High Court. And we have agreed with the High Court that we would allow him to come in, pending a resolution of this matter. In presenting this motion, Mr. Speaker, I want us to go over what happened, how it happened, and how did we arrive at where we are today. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear with me as I go through exactly what happened and dissect why it is we've found ourselves in the present situation and where do we go from here. Mr. Speaker, what did the member for Mikus South say that caused such an offence, Mr. Speaker? What did he say? What led to his action constituting a breach of Standing Order 43-4? Mr. Speaker, I shall quote from your document, Mr. Speaker. And I think we can all obtain the official transcripts of the House, Mr. Speaker. But it's a document that the member himself provided elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. And I want to quote his exact words. And I want you to listen carefully, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, that's what he said, he's quoting himself. The Prime Minister would put that this reference to corruption. So if we want to resolve crime in this country, Mr. Speaker, it starts in cabinet. I want those words, Mr. Speaker, to sink in. It starts in cabinet. The level of corruption of members in your own cabinet has to be addressed. This situation is bananas. How could you have a piece of land, Mr. Speaker, that was valued in 2013 at almost $7 million and in 2021 it was revalued to be at $3.5 million. And he states that you interjected when he said so. Of course, he continues. The crime situation is serious. The government needs to address it in their own cabinet. The Prime Minister keeps on playing this game that he is the big tough guy and the buck stops with him. We have not seen that and we have to set the example as leaders. I want you to note, Mr. Speaker, he is saying we must set the example as leaders. There are too many examples, Mr. Speaker, of members who are doing that. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Of course, then, Mr. Speaker, the member from Cassry Central subsequently rose on a point of order and asked that this matter be addressed. I will not go into all the details, Mr. Speaker, of what happened after. But we met on Tuesday the 2nd and he was asked to prove that there was validity and truth to what he said. The member from Cassry Central presented an understanding of what took place. He went meticulously in detail to show what had happened over the years. He also showed the process that was followed for the acquisition of the land, for the valuation of the land. He compared it with what happened in the past. He indicated a process that was followed by the National Housing Corporation for the sale of the land. He clearly established that he as minister was not responsible for the sale of the land or undertook the sale. He explained to us in detail, remarkable detail. And then the member from Mikusaf was asked, having heard the member from Cassry Central, can you indicate to us where is the corruption that you spoke of? Where is the crime in cabinet? Because you are saying as a member of this house that the honourable members around this house who are in cabinet are criminals, because if you see there is crime in cabinet, then there are criminals there. You're saying that there is corruption and you're saying it individually for the member from Cassry Central and collectively for the members of cabinet. In this honourable house, this is a very serious statement to make. You are standing in this house where you're not even allowed to call members liars and tell members they are lying because that's not acceptable behaviour in this house. I remember in this very house, I had not even said it on my feet. I whispered to a member next to me that do my name, you're lying. Guy was the former member from Cassry Central, he was lying. The speaker heard me and members objected and I was asked to withdraw. And I said, Mr Speaker, I was not even speaking to him and I was asked to withdraw because the speaker had heard. Even if it was off the record and we had an exchange and I said then, Mr Speaker, I don't need to call somebody liar or lying, I can use other more elegant words to describe him. But since you the speaker have asked me to withdraw, I will respect the house, I will respect the speaker and I withdraw. That's how we conducted ourselves, Mr Speaker. That's how you behave in this chamber, Mr Speaker. So the member was asked to prove his allegation because the member from Cassry Central had gone through in detail what had happened. And Mr Speaker, I want Mr Speaker to go through the exchange between yourself and himself, Mr Speaker, because it's illustrative. It's illustrative of his conduct and his behavior. Because having heard the member from Cassry Central, he is then asked to respond. Where is the corruption? So I want Mr Speaker for you to bear with me as I could. And you would say to him, how does the member from Cassry Central and his ministry acting on evaluation of a certified valuer acting on the basis of letters being written to slasper requesting the involvement and being told that they are not interested? How does the sale for one million US translate to corruption on the part of either the member from Cassry Central or the cabinet? That is what I want answered. So you say to him, having heard the member from Cassry Central, responding to your comments previously, tell me where is the corruption? He goes on and on. That it was valued in 2014 at $67 a square foot and a new valuation was done that brought it on to $47. So he's asked again, are you suggesting that there is collusion between the member from Cassry Central and the valuer? Because you have to show that there is corruption. He says, Mr Speaker, let us be very clear and honest with each other. So the Mr Speaker then asked him, are you suggesting we are being dishonest? He says, no, I just want to bring it to the point. And he goes on and he is going on and on and on. And the speaker asked him again as presiding officer, member, I'm hearing all what you are saying. I want to repeat my question. You are placing a reliance on the evaluation of parcel 11 that in my humble opinion is misplaced. I am asking you, there is a valuation of $3.5 million upon which the member was not even involved because nothing that you have said has shown that the member was involved. I saw the chairman involved, I saw the various boards involved and you continue. The question is a very simple one. Even assuming all what you are saying is correct, how does that translate to corruption on the part of the member personally and cabinet collectively? That is all I want answered. You are actually guiding him to focus on showing that there is corruption because that's your claim. He says, Mr Speaker, there are many more issues that we allege that this cabinet, and again you stop him. I don't know about what other issues members are alleging. I speak with a very great degree of specificity. What is the corruption that you allege in the transaction based on what you have said? He goes on, Mr Speaker, I am going to repeat myself. There was a valuation then in 2014 for exactly the same price and he's going on and on. You say to him, remember you choose to ignore my question. I can only ask you to take your seat that you shall not respond to my question and I shall make a determination on this matter on the basis that the facts presented to me out of abundance of portion and then he was living at that point. But then I want you to also hear how it goes on and how it concludes. The speaker says to him, the speaker says to him, what is before me is not where the land is valued at 20 million or 60 million. It is whether the transaction made in the sale of the land to a client of an attorney where the corruption was attached to that sale because that's what he allege. So you ask him, can you establish it? You have not made that case. And I ask you, I am the judge in this chamber and I would ask you to withdraw the statement that I have read and he says, I will not withdraw. Now let's go over that again. You ask him as presiding officer to withdraw the statement because in your opinion as presiding officer he's not established that there was corruption by the honorable member and by cabinet. And you ask him to withdraw the statement that he's made and he says he will not withdraw his statement. Mr. Speaker, of course, in keeping it standing orders 43 the house was asked to take action as such behavior by a member is not acceptable. But Mr. Speaker, the member for Miku South is no stranger to the fact that he is not a member of the House. He is no stranger to misbehavior in the House. He is no stranger. And the member from- Mr. Speaker, point of order. What is the point of order? Mr. Speaker, I'm standing order of 35. I think the member is- 35? Is discussing a matter which is in the courts as you indicated in your opening remarks and a member should resist from diverging information that should be discussed in the courts. Where in 45 does it? Well, I stood on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the member was out of- I can say misleading because he was going in the direction that he should not be going at this point. Which is- He was discussing a matter which is in the courts. And where does the standing orders preclude a matter before the court being discussed? By your very own words in previous- No, I'm asking you, where in the standing orders- You have indicated that matters before the court should not be- I've never indicated it. I said- In the House? I read the standing order very clearly. It says, where in the opinion of the President and Officer, what is being discussed may prejudice the case. I am not seeing anything. You're not seeing the- In your opinion, you don't see that what is being discussed publicly right now, but the whole of San Lucia is looking at this, you know. But what is he saying? But he's discussing the items of the cases, Mr. Speaker. The case? So, a member from Sousel, Salty Bus, the very motion before the House is about the matter. We told the court that we will allow him to come back, and I will deliver that in a while. I'm not discussing whether his claims are right or wrong. I'm not dealing with this. But the court- We told the court we're going to allow him back, and I will explain a little later why we told the court that. So, I'm not going into the arguments because I can speak a bit about it. I would love to. Because in his document to the courts, he quoted words I made in this House which the transcript showed is not true. In fact, I would love him to explain to the court how he quoted me in an affidavit, signed by him, saying it's true, and I never said those things in the House because the transcript of the House does not say that. But that's another story. So, we will deliver the court case in court. We deliver the parliament case right now. So, I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that the member from Miku South is no stranger to misbehavior in this House. And other members, I'm sure, will give you the details and the visuals to show you how he has misbehaved in this House, Mr. Speaker. They will show it to you. This member from Miku South has no respect for the courts. He doesn't, for the House, he doesn't have respect for his own members of cabinet that he's had with. And they all know that. But of course, they're hanging on to the court tales, hoping somehow they can finally win a seat somewhere, Mr. Speaker, and I wish them well, especially those that want to go against the Prime Minister. But Mr. Speaker, the point is, the member has misbehaved in this House over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker, refused to elect a Deputy Speaker, has flouted the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, over and over, Mr. Speaker. And I can give details upon details, Mr. Speaker. But he was Prime Minister then. So as Prime Minister, he can terrorize former Speaker Feodor John. He can terrorize Andy Daniel, openly say to them in this House, I shall not sit or I shall not withdraw. And he cannot do anything about it. And all his members know that is true. That's how he behaved. And you will see the evidence later on, Mr. Speaker. That's how he behaved. But he could not have been sanctioned because he, Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister. But he's no longer Prime Minister. And if he misbehaves in this House, there are sanctions, Mr. Speaker. There are sanctions. And he was asked, Mr. Speaker, by you to withdraw the statement. And he refused to withdraw it and showed gross disrespect to the presiding officer, Mr. Speaker. Now, somebody might ask you the question, why did we suspend him? We suspended him to show him, Mr. Speaker, that he must respect the rules of the House. If you accuse a member, if you accuse a member, all you have been asked to do is to prove what you are saying. That's what you've been asked to do. If you say a member is corrupt, which you ought not to even say in the House, because he's bringing out the member, you know, he to distribute, Mr. Speaker, at least you have to prove it. If you say somebody sold something, you must prove it. You must show the evidence, Mr. Speaker. I came in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I remember trying to table the contract with Don Lockerbie. I had a copy of the contract, signed, Mr. Speaker, and I tried to table it and I was prevented from tabling it to make it a document of the House. A signed contract to prove, because they were denying the Don Lockerbie arrangement. And I was going to table the contract. That's how you prove things. And I was told I'm not allowed to. And then you know what he said? It was a fake document. The DSH document, the contract, the framework agreement, we tried to table it in this House and you'd recall the member saying on television that it was a fake document. It's on social media. They saw it. They denied it existed. We had copies. And you know how it finally came that in fact they were lying was when a member from Straszl Saltiba said he signed it, but he had not read it. Okay, you didn't say that. But you signed it. You said you signed it. But okay, you didn't say you did not read it. I remember you saying you did not read it. But anyway, let's put that aside. Let's put it aside. The same document they said was a fake document. Okay, you didn't recall. That's even better. That's even better. That's even better. You should have allowed the previous comment I made by Stan. But let's move on. Let's move on. Honorable member. So, okay. But the point I was making is not even that, honorable member. The point I was making is how we came into this House and when we made a claim, we proved it. If we could not prove it, we kept quiet, Mr. Speaker. When we stood up in this House and we spoke about the Wasco Dam scandal, I had all the documents to show, and the member from Casteries had all the documents to show what had happened in the selection of the contractor and everything else. We were prevented from making that document at the House. But they have a reason why they do that, because they don't want the House to record the acts that they did, Mr. Speaker. So we have come to this House. We've made claims on every instance, we've proved it. Why can't you prove it? Why can't you prove it? And you've been asked over and over to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the House has the capacity to discipline members. It has the capacity. When members disregard the rules of the House, the House can discipline them. And the House has shown that it is willing to act when necessary. It's not its first inclination. Members are called upon to withdraw. Honorable member, can you withdraw? Honorable member, that's the first inclination of the House. But he doesn't listen to that. He doesn't, Mr. Speaker. But Mr. Speaker, we did not suspend him because of any malice or pettiness. We did not. And I want to go back to my comments shortly after that incident, shortly after that incident, Mr. Speaker. I want to go to the comments I made at the start of my presentation on the budget statements. Right after it happened, immediately after it happened, Mr. Speaker, I want to read my comments for you, Mr. Speaker. And I shall proceed, Mr. Speaker. Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, with a substance of my contribution, I think we need to just reflect for a few moments on what transpired earlier today. As it relates to the member for Miku South. I think, Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching and certainly for us in this honorable chamber, it was very disconcerting the behavior of the member for Miku South and the attitude that he showed towards this honorable House. It is never our intent, Mr. Speaker, to disenfranchise any member or for that purpose to disenfranchise any constituency that elected a member to sit here to represent them. But I think we needed to get across to the honorable member that in this honorable House, there is a code of conduct. There is a manner in which you ought to behave and there are respects and that there are conventions and other accepted practices in this honorable House. I have been asked before to withdraw statements that I was convinced I did not have any reason to withdraw. I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, during my five years in opposition to express my apologies for what I would have said because another member would have felt offended. Even if I felt I was right, when the speaker asked me to, I exceeded, Mr. Speaker. I never showed disrespect. Even when I believe I was right and our actions today is to show to the honorable member, not that any one of us in particular, but as a collective, this chamber, this institution that we are part of, asked that he shows respect and regard for it. I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to see that the honorable member does not participate in future deliberations. I want to repeat it. I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to see that the honorable member does not participate in future deliberations. Mr. Speaker, I suspect it would be up to you to engage him on moving forward. But he has to accept that this House demands from him a more civilized conduct in this honorable chamber. And that, Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record as the intent of the decision we took that's why we did it. I hope the honorable member recognizes that he ought to be in this House as elected by the people to represent them. He may remain arrogant. He may remain very haughty. And he may believe that he has no reason to show any respect to the chamber. That is for him to decide. But we want the honorable member to understand that there is a particular way you ought to behave in this honorable House. And, Mr. Speaker, I trust, like I said, you will engage him and ensure that we can move forward because our ultimate aim is that everyone who's elected by the people should be in this House representing them. And I said that, I said that minutes after he was suspended, minutes after. That was my statement, Mr. Speaker, because we want him in this House, Mr. Speaker. So after all of this, what has happened? What did he do? What did he do? The first thing he tried to do was to get public support for what he called his democratic rights. And today, they applied to the police for a walk for democracy. Not a walk for health. Not a walk for healthy lifestyles. Not a, how you call it, moving in St. Lucia. You know, he wants a walk for democracy. Now, we all know there's a lot of semantics. A walk, a run, a march. It's a member, Gaila. But, Mr. Speaker, I want you to reflect on this honorable member. He says his democratic rights have been infringed. He wants the public to support him for his actions. Mr. Speaker, what actions? To be disrespectful in the House? God, that's what it's about. That's what he wants the public to support him, to stand in the House and accuse members. And when asked to prove what you are saying, he doesn't do it. He disrespects the chair. And like a very naughty child, when a parent tries to discipline him, throws a tantrum. So he wants the public to support him in that behavior. The same person who misbehaved for so many years when he was Prime Minister. But all of a sudden, he's no longer Prime Minister. So he has to account for his actions. So he now wants the public to support him. And he says it's his democratic rights, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, democratic rights? You can hear outside, Mr. Speaker, the crowd chanting. When we all came in, he had his supporters outside. You will recall a few years ago when he was Prime Minister. This parliament was barricaded. Senators were not allowed to come within a hundred meters of parliament. Barricade. Stay away. What you see outside, Mr. Speaker, is democracy at work. This is democracy. This is democracy. No member in here has any fear of the people supporting United Workers Party being outside expressing their views. We have no fear. We will allow them every single day to be outside expressing their views. No fear. And you know why? Because they are in the minority, Mr. Speaker. They do not speak for St. Lucia, Mr. Speaker. It's even more interesting for me. They're not marching and demonstrating for help for the poor. They're not marching and demonstrating because the economy is not working. They're not marching and demonstrating because there was no economic growth. They're not marching and demonstrating because there was no help for housing. They're not marching because there were no laptops for the children. They were not demonstrating because there was jazz in Marsha they're not all the bread and butter issues they're not demonstrating because there's no need to demonstrate so they are demonstrating they say for their democratic rights but they outside in parliament yard expressing their views and you swear is the booth of democracy in the Greek city state of Athens when Plato and Aristotle and all of them encourage the people to speak up speak up speak up and express your views the book the book of democracy Mr. Speaker that's what's happening outside democracy the same member who later government at closed on Radio St. Lucia the national radio station because they said they had too many SLP hacks working there same the same I mean I can go on and on and talk about the violations of democracy you know Mr. Speaker I had to go through an experience with the last government and they claim all kinds of things against me but the one that really shocked me and I've not really said it in public and somebody reminded me of it this morning how but Fred just worked in the High Commission together with me so they wanted to interview him to find out what may have happened in the High Commission and the two police officers were investigating told him to come for the interview and he asked where they said that Prime Minister's residence and the lawyer said what this is supposed assuming is an investigation as legitimate why do we have to go to Prime Minister's residence to be for him to be interviewed and he never went but the point I'm making democracy you have a claim or an interest in the actions of somebody but the interviews been done by the investigators they are located in the Prime Minister's residence think about that people think about that and talk about democracy the politicization of investigations against your enemies remember the Watergate scandal remember that talk about democracy we will always allow the people to speak up Mr. Speaker to say Mr. Speaker but you know what I found even most interesting member from Srozel Salty bus is a member from Mikusau says this is a seminal case that he is taking against the state and he needs a fundraiser but earlier on he had said I can take care of myself I can take care of myself it's not for me it's for the people and then he says you need a fundraiser but he doesn't have money to pay for the case Mr. Speaker but Mr. Speaker is second action is to file a case in the courts now Mr. Speaker I'm not going to go into the details because obviously is a matter before the courts Mr. Speaker but we need to say what's in the public domain so I'm not going to go into all the details of the case Mr. Speaker but I want you to reflect Mr. Speaker on the seriousness of what the Honourable Member has done the Honourable Member has says says that the standing orders are unconstitutional they are unlawful and therefore by suspending him they violated his rights as a citizen now if the standing orders are unconstitutional and illegal and Mr. Speaker I mean I know you won't allow me but I could have actually quoted from the document Mr. Speaker that he filed it means the standing orders that we've had since independence that was inherited from time we were colony and an associated states the fact John Compton Henry G. Roddy Evans cauldron Mr. Speaker Alan Louisie George Mallet those standing orders that were negotiated and put together by the chamber before the chambers before us Mr. Speaker it means because like Sinclair Daniel and Matthew Roberts and husbands and all of them all of them have been engaging in an illegal act think about that Mr. Speaker think about it that by suspending him this that's an unconstitutional act it's illegal it means the very foundation upon which we are in this house is illegal it means the processes that we pass the laws may have been illegal tell me Mr. Speaker of course he's trying to refer specifically to the issue of suspension maybe he's going to argue before the courts it's not all the standing orders but it's just the one that they use against me that's illegal I'm not discussing the details of the case you asked me not to so if you want me to go into a legal analysis I will call it more learned people to do so but I'm telling you if the Constitution says there shall be a Parliament and the Parliament shall regulate its own conduct and its rules the Parliament is not the standing orders are not unreasonable the standing orders are not asking you to go and commit suicide or to go and take a life or to go and seize property the standing orders is about the conduct of the business of Parliament how does it become but anyway I leave that for the courts to decide Mr. Speaker you know so Mr. Speaker the Honourable Member Mr. Speaker goes to the courts and in addition to saying that what we the standing orders are illegal and constitutional he says to the courts put an injunction on the house until this matter is decided in the courts ask them to take me back in this is that put an injunction on the house and until this matter is decided to take me back in but we want you back in we want you back in I read my comments I made minutes after we suspended him where I said we want him in the chamber we don't want you out so we told the court there's no need for hearing on injunction if he wants to go to court to decide whether this house standing orders are unconstitutional or not let him go we want him in the house he has to answer about the Euronora International Airport redevelopment project he has to answer about St. Jude's he has to answer about the Rodney Bay roundabouts he has to answer about the Wasco Dam so John comes and down he has to answer about the Pajua letter he has to answer about the vaccines there's a lot for him to answer and if he's not in this house he cannot answer the land that we just starting I can give him the list mr. Speaker he has to be in this house he has a privileged committee to attend he has if he's not a member he cannot attend we want him in the house so we told the court there is no issue we don't need no injunction we don't want anything mr. Speaker let him I'm not even going into whether the court would have granted it or would not have granted it I don't even want to that's for the lawyers to decide we know we want him in the house we want him here and the courts will decide if what we did was legal or not or whether he's supposed to apologize or not and then I want him to now say the court sound constitutional I want him to have another fundraiser to see the courts are illegal that's what I want him to do because we want him inside here because if you're going to accuse people of being corrupt and why are they corrupt is because of valuation the land change so what happened to DSH and a thousand acres at a dollar and acre was that was their corruption honorable member was their corruption was their corruption the lands up north that the developer that NIC was about to buy and I see was who don't buy it give the money instead to a private developer to buy it was that was that corruption was that corruption can you think about that somebody is arguing to move the valuation from 7 million to 3 and a half million is corruption and they are criminals but then you the lands that were going to be bought by and as you see for the people of St. Lucia they were instructed not to buy take the same money get to a private developer from outside St. Lucia to buy the lands and and that's not corruption to DSH is not corruption to I'm not saying it is but if that's your yard stick for measure in corruption you have a lot of acts of corruption to a lot but I will not accuse you or any member of corruption because I don't know the details I don't know it but that is how this party operates that's how this party operates mr. Speaker so mr. Speaker the courts will decide and the courts will make a final determination and will respect the decision of the courts if the courts rule mr. Speaker that what we did was unconstitutional what we did was unlawful then we were wrong but we know we followed standing orders that were established and enacted in this honorable house we followed it and if the court said it was unconstitutional then we'll have to correct it but if the courts find we were right the honorable member will have to account for his actions at least the house will then decide what happens next but we want the honorable member in this house and I support this motion that I've presented because we want him to be back in the house mr. Speaker we want him to be back mr. Speaker one final point I want to make the honorable member says in his filing in the courts that he has never given a chance to withdraw and apologize mr. Speaker never and I read the transcript where he was asked by the presiding officer to withdraw and he said he shall not and I'm putting it before this house and for the record that the member still has an opportunity to withdraw his comments and apologize because if you go into the courts to say they treated you wrongfully they never asked you to apologize and they just suspend you you have been given another opportunity when you have been allowed back in this house of course we have items on the agenda on the order paper that he has to stick to but I'm sure mr. Speaker you will give him a minute for him to apologize and withdraw his statement because we are not denying him an opportunity for him to withdraw and for him to apologize because it's disingenuous to say you were suspended without giving you a chance to withdraw and apologize because the transcript show where you were asked and you said I will not and then you were told you will stay out until you apologize and withdraw so mr. Speaker this motion is fulfilling a promise we made to the courts that we will allow him to come back in let the court decide what the matter is no drama no drama we want you in here we want you to keep the member from Schrozel company he gets lonely when you're not there so for fear that he might lost his way in this house we want him to be here with you honorable member so we want him back in this house so honorable members I present to you this motion to approve this motion and to allow the member from Miku South to come back to this house to account for his actions for him as the rightful rule of leader of the opposition to hold his government to account but he learned he will learn mr. Speaker there are rules there are conventions there are practices there's decorum there's dignity that one must display when they conduct themselves in this house thank you very much