So, as you heard, Peyrefitte, who is a trained attorney, has a very dim view of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. His main grounds for complaints against the Commission's objectivity is that his purchases are being called into question by the Commission in this report. The problem is that they didn't call him to testify so that he could justify why he thinks his actions are above board.
You'll remember back in February when Former Prime Minister Dean Barrow testified as the first witness in the Inquiry. He was asked about the approval process in the sale of customized furniture, a laptop, and an iPad to Peyrefitte.
After reviewing their evidence, the Commission is recommending that the Clerk of the National Assembly take action - in court if necessary - to determine if Peyrefitte should continue to sit in the National Assembly
Well, Peyrefitte insisted that if those purchases were of such a great concern, that the Commission had to flag it in their final report, the least they could have done was to call him as a witness. Here's how he made that point:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - UDP Senator
"I have all the documentation. Andrew Marshalleck has all the documentation that tells you exactly how those things that I purchased were purchased. They were offered to me by the Finance Officer, to say, 'Minister, these things were constructed just for you. If you leave this office, then whoever comes in will just purchase new ones. So, the Ministry and the Government will just have to stock these somewhere, collect dust, and they would just go to waste. Why don't you buy these things?' When I have a telephone conversation with the Fin Sec, he said, 'Of course. Write to me. Make me an offer. Tell me the things that were specifically purchased for you.' And, he even said on the phone, 'Didn't you get a laptop and another computer like 3 years ago?'And I said, yes, and he said, 'Well, put it in there. Write everything, and put it in there.' I wrote to the Fin Sec. The Fin Sec wrote back to me. The Vehicle Care Unit wrote back to me saying, 'We approve the purchase of these items. You must pay us this price within 30 days, or the offer is dead.' So, I paid the price. I collected my items. I have all the letters to prove that, all the receipts to prove that. Marshalleck has those receipts and those communications. So, I don't know - as they say in the streets - where he's playing lost for. But he's not playing lost. This is a strategy, and then you ask yourself this, Daniel. How can, in a Commission of Inquiry, recommend the removal of a man from the National Assembly, and you didn't even call that man as a witness to this Commission of Inquiry? I was waiting to be called. He never called me to testify. He never called me to respond to different things. So, doesn't that tell you everything? He had all my documentation, and all my documentation showed that my actions were completely above board, throughout. And that is why he didn't want to call me because he know that this would have been explained. He preferred not to call me, and then just throw out this report. So, listen. Bring it on. Let's go to court. I have my documents ready. I have my lawyer on cock. Wi Ready. let's go."
We also asked Peyrefitte about the possible criticism that as, as the Former Attorney General, and chief attorney to the former Barrow Administration, he should have known about the procedural violations which the Commission has pointed out in their report:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - UDP Senator
"Let's put it this way. Let's take it from my personal view. I go to a shop, and I buy something at the shop. And the shop owner comes to me later and says, 'Oh, some procedures weren't followed within my shop when we sold you this item.' My response has to be, 'Bredda, I went into your shop. I said I wanted this. You gave me a price. I paid you. I walked out of the shop with my items. Your internal mechanisms, I'm not responsible for. It was the Financial Secretary who should have told me, this is what you must follow. This is what you must do. He told me what to do. I did it, and I was approved. Whatever is the internal structure within the Ministry of Finance, when it comes to the purchase of equipment from the Vehicle Care Unit, that's not for me to know. That's for them to know. If I get a letter from them saying that my purchases are approved, who am I to say, 'Did you follow procedure? Did you go through this? Did you go through that? They have their own system, and the people who were in charge of it were people who were doing it for years. So, I figured they must know what they were doing. But, in any event, it doesn't suggest anything untoward at all. And the [Former] Prime Minister has testified to that. When questioned, he said it was totally justified, in his view, what he did to approve the purchase. But, as I said, Andrew Marshalleck had all this information on me. He had documentation. He had the entire paper trail, which I will say when we go to court. And, I'm praying we go to court. So, we can then decide it at that point. "
Reporter
"But, in this report, the suggestion is that both the [Former] Prime Minister and the Financial Secretary practiced a violation of proper disposal of assets, and so maybe you were baited."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte
"If you had such a great concern about my concern, Andrew Marshalleck, who is a Senior Counsel, who is a senior attorney to me, who - all those things. I'm the former Attorney General, blah blah blah. He's a senior attorney to me. You know the due process. You know natural justice. You're gonna produce a report like this, without trying to even hear from me? And every time, I used to see the process server, who was serving it, the now-head of the Vehicle Care Unit, Mr. Ashton Longsworth. Every time, I would see him in the street, Don't you have a summons for me? Don't you have a summons for me? I want to appear before this Commission, and tell you what happened in my case. But, they refused to do that, because by calling me, they would have then been exposed."
