Photo: Moses “Shyne” Barrow, Leader of the Opposition
The Leader of the Opposition has made the grave accusation that the Collet Area Representative has crossed the floor
BELMOPAN, Thursday, October 12, 2023
The relationship between Leader of the Opposition Moses “Shyne” Barrow and Collet Area Representative Patrick Faber has taken another negative turn. The two politicians have jostled for the leadership of the United Democratic Party in the last few years, and many times their relationship could be described as acrimonious. The last development on the status of that relationship came when Faber absented himself from the Party’s National Convention in August 2023. At that time, Barrow was endorsed as party leader through to the next general elections expected in 2025. Sources say, though, that despite the claim that Faber was abroad studying, in fact he was right here in Belize. The last time there seemed to be some semblance of unity in the Party was at the end of May 2023, coming out of a National Party Council meeting, where Faber was endorsed to run again as Collet Area Representative, even though Ian Jones had previously been endorsed as standard bearer.
As the days went on, it became evident that there was still discord in the Barrow/Faber relationship, and any truce brokered seemed shaky. Fast-forward to this week, and Faber now stands accused by his party leader of “crossing the floor”. The bombshell declaration follows a meeting of the Constitution and Foreign Affairs, Privileges, Standing Orders, House and Regulations Committee on Wednesday, October 11 inside the Committee Room of the National Assembly in Belmopan. The purpose of the meeting was to address the angry e-mail that Barrow had written to the Speaker of the House, Hon. Valerie Woods, after his private member’s motion of No Confidence in Prime Minister John Briceño was disallowed. Barrow, in his e-mail that the Speaker read aloud at the following day’s sitting, stated, “You, Madam Speaker, have exposed yourself to be a complete waste of time as Speaker of the Honorable House. You repeatedly act as a shield for the Government, shamelessly misinterpreting and misapplying the Standing Orders to protect the Prime Minister and his Government from public scrutiny and accountability. When the UDP was in government, we were not afraid of the opposition. We allowed for No Confidence motions as we are true protectors of democracy. With each erroneous ruling you expose yourself as a complete biased speaker that will stop at nothing to protect the PUP Government.” He later described her as a partisan hack.
The Privileges Committee addressed the matter on Wednesday at a meeting chaired by pro-tem chairman, Dr. Louis Zabaneh, who indicated that the least Barrow could do was apologize to the Speaker, and that he would have the opportunity to do so at Friday’s House Meeting. Zabaneh pointed out that a sub-committee has been established to draft a code of conduct for the members of Parliament, and Barrow is a part of that committee. Zabaneh noted that this kind of behavior was displayed even as that sub-committee’s review is ongoing.
Judging by Barrow’s stance at the conclusion of Wednesday’s meeting, we can rest assured that no apology will be forthcoming. The Leader of the Opposition told 7 News that he stands by the initial views he expressed about the Speaker, and further, that the Standing Orders do not apply to communication with the Speaker outside of the House. He added that many of his colleagues share his opinion. However, Faber clearly does not. He actually wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, Julius Espat, indicating that he does not wish to associate himself with the remarks of his Party Leader regarding the Speaker. Faber had done something similar inside the House in June this year when Barrow made a comment about a conviction of the Prime Minister’s father. Faber placed on the record: “I don’t associate myself with bringing the Prime Minister’s father into situations … I don’t think that kind of exchange should happen.” Barrow at the time had said, “I would have hoped that the Member from Collet would have gotten up and said, ‘well, you shouldn’t be talking about Shyne’s past, and Leader, mek we leff lone di Prime Minister’s father.”
Faber has not responded to our request for comment, but a question remains on whether his action actually constitutes crossing the floor. Some considerations are that his party is not in power and he has not voted against a cabinet collective decision, and Faber has not categorically stated that he is leaving his party and is joining the People’s United Party. For his part, Barrow stated, “He has crossed the floor, so we will deal with him in a manner that the Constitution says clearly that when a member of the opposition votes with the government that they have crossed the floor and they have forfeited their seat … We all know how that gentleman has behaved in the past and this is consistent with his behavior in the past, and without going into any more details that behavior was dealt with. As far as him losing the ability to run for the party, he was given a second chance, and this is what he does now. But the difference between this and then is, he has now violated the Constitution because he has voted with the government, and that is a violation of the Constitution. That means that you forfeit your seat as an opposition member and there has to be a bye-election in Collet.”
According to the Constitution at section 59, which addresses a member vacating his/her seat due to resignation or crossing the floor, the leader of the party of the member who is accused of crossing the floor must submit a written notice within 7 days to the Speaker. If the Speaker is satisfied that the member has crossed the floor, a declaration is to be made at the next House meeting that the member has vacated his/her seat. The member in question can appeal to the High Court and the Court’s decision shall be final.
Today, when asked what he thought of the Faber letter, the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, Julius Espat stated, “I think democracy is alive.” Espat believes that the matter may end up in court. He went on to comment though, “The Standing Orders is quite simple. It allows you to do many things. And all you have to do is say ‘mea culpa. I apologize, Madam Speaker.’ And it’s done, dead right there and you move on. I have done it countless of times. The problem with me is that they never accept my apology. But it is what it is. You are dealing with a dictatorial side of governance, compared to our side which is a democratic style of governance.”
Faber is currently the most senior parliamentarian on the Opposition bench, having won his division 5 times since 2003.