PAC to pursue contempt action against UHWI chief Fitzgerald Mitchell after third parliamentary no-show

The Public Accounts Committee is preparing to hold Fitzgerald Mitchell, chief executive of the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), to account after he stayed away from lawmakers for a third time while they examine an Auditor General's report on the hospital, even though Parliament had formally summoned him.

The step was taken on Tuesday when Mitchell once again did not attend a committee session reviewing the Auditor General's performance audit of UHWI.

Committee chairman Julian Robinson said Mitchell neither showed up nor gave any reason for his absence, though a summons was served on June 8.

"We have received no correspondence from Mr Mitchell, nor his lawyer indicating his absence. And in view of his absence from this meeting, there is a process that will be triggered," Robinson told the committee.

Mitchell's repeated non-attendance drew firm pushback from members, particularly because the panel had specifically sought his testimony on audit findings that flagged serious shortcomings in procurement, governance and record keeping at the hospital.

Former CEO Kevin Allen and former board chairman Wayne Chai Chong, who were also called to give evidence as part of the committee's review, had appeared and testified at earlier sittings. Robinson highlighted their cooperation while questioning why Mitchell would not engage.

"It is very concerning that a public official who is in a position of authority, having been invited first, not responded, having been summoned, no response either from himself nor his lawyer, is in contempt and in breach of the Parliament," Robinson said.

Senior Legislative Counsel Tiffany Stewart told members that all legal and administrative steps to serve the summons were completed in line with the Senate and House of Representatives Powers and Privileges Act and the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives.

She cautioned that Mitchell's failure to appear could amount to an offence under the Act and could be reported to the House as contempt of Parliament.

Stewart, however, noted that the statute carries what several members regarded as an outdated penalty. Under the current law, a person found guilty of contempt faces a maximum fine of $200 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for up to 12 months.

Robinson said the punishment was plainly inadequate and weakened Parliament's capacity to perform its oversight function. He argued that allowing public officials to disregard invitations and summons without consequence could undermine the legislature's ability to hold public bodies to account.

"It can't be that a committee designed to ensure accountability, transparency, and good governance will have its work subverted simply because a public officer refuses to appear before it," Robinson said.

The committee later agreed to draft a report to the Speaker of the House setting out Mitchell's failure to comply with the summons and requesting that the process prescribed by law be started.