House Speaker Wade Mark's claim on Friday that some of the contents in a motion of censure brought against Finance Minister Larry Howai were sub judice had no merit as there is no jury to influence, MSJ leader David Abdulah said yesterday.
In law, sub judice means a case is being considered by a judge and its outcome can be prejudiced by publication. Abdulah said this applies to criminal cases which are determined by judge and jury. He said the action filed by Howai against the Sunshine newspaper and reporter Azad Ali was a civil matter to be heard only by a judge and the sub judice rule protects the integrity of a court matter because a jury is made up of ordinary citizens who can be easily influenced.
On the other hand, he said, judges are high ranking law officers who ought not to be easily influenced.
"If a judge is subject to bias or is able to be influenced by what he or she reads in the newspapers, he or she ought not to be a judge in the first place and so a debate in Parliament should not and ought not be able to influence a judge hearing a matter with respect to defamation or otherwise, which is a civil matter," the MSJ leader said
Abdulah said it was disturbing that important matters up for debate in Parliament can be restricted by a parliamentarian filing civil action in court. He called on the Parliament and the judiciary to give details on the letter received by Mark minutes before the motion brought by Chagaunas West MP Jack Warner.
The motion of censure called on MPs to express a loss of confidence in Howai for his role as CEO of First Citizens Bank from 2006 to 2009 when a loan was granted to Carlton Savannah Ltd for construction of a hotel.Carlton Savannah went into receivership and the outstanding loan negatively affected First Citizen's non-performing ratio.