Can private companies be summoned to appear before a parliamentary committee?

Aug 18, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The powerful bourgeois class in Guyana, that exerts influence on the political classes in Guyana, must be petrified at the idea that a parliamentary committee can have the temerity, much less the legal right, to summon a private company to appear before it. Imagine the fear, for example, of the members of the class of local contractors, should it be ruled that the Public Accounts Committee can summon them to answer questions about alleged corruption in public procurement.

The Standing Orders of the National Assembly do allow for a Sectoral Committee to summon persons – the operative word is ‘persons’. This summons has to be made in accordance with the Legislative Bodies (Evidence) Act.

That legislation permits such a summons by a legislative body such as Cabinet, a Special Select Committee or any committee which is so empowered by resolution of the National Assembly. A Sectoral Committee is not a Select Committee nor is it specifically empowered by a resolution of the National Assembly to summon witnesses. However, the Standing Orders are passed by a resolution that this would suggest that the powers to summon witnesses by a Sectoral Committee are sanctioned under the Legislative Bodies (Evidence) Act.

Guyana, of course, follows the British Westminster tradition. By convention it was presumed that British Parliament can summon representatives of a private company to appear before it.

Parliamentary committees in the UK, it was claimed, have the power to call witnesses to give evidence, which can include individuals from private companies, public bodies, and other organizations. This, it is contended, is part of the committee’s role in scrutinizing government actions and examining issues of public concern.

This ability to summon private entities allows Parliament to investigate a wide range of issues, from corporate practices to regulatory compliance, and to hold private companies accountable in matters of public interest. The view about private persons being mandated to give evidence however has recently been called into question.

By convention, if a company or its representatives refuse to comply with a summons, Parliament theoretically has the power to hold them in contempt. This could lead to sanctions. However, such powers are rarely exercised to their fullest extent, and in practice, most companies comply with such requests. Just recently tech-giant Amazon declined to attend before a UK parliamentary committee.

Part of the difficulty in imposing sanctions on those who refuse to appear before a parliamentary committee in the UK is that the right of parliamentary committees to summon private companies is not explicitly laid out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, but it is derived from broader parliamentary powers and practices.

The power to summon witnesses, including representatives from private companies, is said to be rooted in the concept of parliamentary privilege. This privilege grants Parliament certain legal immunities and powers that are not necessarily codified in statute but are part of the historical and constitutional framework of the UK. But this too is now being called into question.

Like in Guyana, the UK has no specific law that codifies the power to summon private companies. The existing legislation focuses on summoning individuals rather than companies. This opens the door, in Guyana, to legal challenges to any summons issued to a private company.

There have been instances, however, where executives have been summoned to appear before parliamentary committees in the United Kingdom.  In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, representatives from Facebook were summoned to testify before a UK parliamentary committee. Also, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch was summoned and did appear before a select parliamentary committee investigating a phone hacking scandal. So there is precedent for individuals to be summoned to appear before a parliamentary committee.

Interestingly arising out of the appearance of Murdoch and his son before a parliamentary select committee, a report commissioned by the Constitutional Society argued that that parliamentary select committees lack the coercive powers to compel private witnesses to attend hearings or to punish them for non-compliance. The report highlighted that that witnesses may be misled into believing they are fully protected by parliamentary privilege when giving evidence, which may not be accurate. Additionally, the report criticizes the view that witnesses are obliged to answer all questions posed by committees, when, in the opinion of the authors of the report, they cannot be forced to do so.

In Guyana any attempt to summons private individuals and companies is going to be met by a legal challenge. It would be a revolutionary development in local parliamentary practice for private individuals and companies to be summoned. Imagine the implications!

The bourgeois class will resist stoutly any such attempt. And the ruling class is hardly like to countenance going against the interests of this class.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• companies, Guyana, Parliamentary Committee, Peeping Tom, political

---