Last week, we told you that UDP propagandist, Delroy Cuthkelvin, was facing the prospect of being axed from his party for, quote, "highly critical, disrespectful, distorted, and oftentimes untrue public comments about our party leader, other members of the leadership, and of the UDP as an organisation." End quote.
He's been summoned to appear before the party's ethic committee but Cuthkelvin isn't about to back down. In fact, he's doubling down!
In his trademark style, he's instead made an ad, calling out UDP chairman, Michael Peyrefitte, for making a move against him while ignoring the complaints about John Saldivar that were sent to him by former Belmopan Mayor, Simeon Lopez and Ramon Witz.
Yesterday, Peyrefitte responded by saying the two cases can't be compared. Here's how he put it:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, UDP Senator
"Well we have rules within the party. An official complaint was made to him. I passed on that complaint to the central executive which is the only body that can trigger an ethics committee hearing. They voted to trigger that ethics committee hearing, so the ethics committee will have its say and whatever decision they come to, thats the decision we will live with. Him making an ad or whatever, that's his purview, he can choose to do that."
Jules Vasquez
"But the ad specifically states that you are being hypocritical, because complaints came to your office about John Saldivar, in August of last year, you didn't choose to forward that."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, UDP Senator
"There was no official complaint to me about John Saldivar. I heard rumblings and disagreements and criticisms are not official complaints to me asking for an investigation. Thats what I got, so that's what I forwarded."
Jules Vasquez
"But there are 2 letters; one from Ramon Witz, one from the former mayor Simeon Lopez. Are you not in receipt of those?"
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, UDP Senator
"Yes, I received those, but none of them requested anything to say well they wanted an investigation and a ruling by the ethics committee. It's just complaints. This was a complaint that said listen we want an investigation; these are the specific offenses that this person we believe has committed and we want under this particular section of the constitution for that person to have a hearing. I don't recall any of those letters saying that."
