Angry MPs have clashed over Premier Craig Cannonier’s refusal to answer questions on contact with US building firm Landow.

Mr Cannonier, who is suing Opposition Leader Mark Bean and Shadow Finance Minister David Burt for defamation over the affair dubbed “Jetgate” denied any wrongdoing, but yesterday did not address specific questions on the extent of his contact with the firm.

Attorney General Mark Pettingill argued that the questions could “prejudice the interests of the parties thereto” in a court case.

The Premier was asked two questions by Shadow Finance Minister David Burt — whether he had had any contact with Landow representatives before he met them in Washington DC last year.

And he was also asked if he had any contact with representatives of the firm since he made a personal explanation to the House of Assembly in May last year.

Mr Cannonier replied to both questions: “I am not going to prejudice myself in this matter.

“There has been absolutely no wrongdoing and we will not be discussing this matter any further.”

And he repeated: “I refuse to prejudice myself concerning this matter — my answer is my answer.”

Earlier, Mr Pettingill argued the questions could well come up in the defamation action against the two PLP MPs and should not be allowed.

But Speaker Randy Horton ruled that Mr Burt could pose his questions — although the Government could argue why it could not answer.

And he said he would refer the matter to the House standing orders committee for review “in case Members think it’s time to reconsider how the House should proceed with respect to Parliamentary questions.”

The move followed a clash between Mr Pettingill and Shadow Attorney General Kim Wilson, who argued that the case would not become sub judice until a court date was set.

Mr Pettingill said afterwards: “This issue is a simple one — the main point to make is that sub judice doesn’t mean it won’t be discussed at some stage. Courts are public.

“The fact is I am one of the parties to the action — it’s not appropriate to have a fishing expedition in Parliament on a pending court action.”

He added: “I certainly wouldn’t get into any answering any questions which are almost like cross examination questions in the House of Assembly.

“Whatever anyone says in the House of Assembly can certainly be evidence in a case either way.”

And Mr Pettingill said: “Anybody can ask a question to make somebody else look bad — there are not necessarily any facts or truth or any evidence in the question.”

But Ms Wilson said sub judice could not apply before a case came to court — and added a general writ did not contain the specifics of any case.

And she added: “At the point it’s set down for trial, it become sub judice.”

Ms Wilson said: “The most discouraging part of this is that there was no reply and if the public has a right to know and we are asking questions of the leader of the country and the Speaker has allowed the questions to be put to him, it’s discouraging for the Premier to refuse to answer them.”

Mr Burt added: “I am not happy with the answers, but it’s not a question of whether I’m happy, but whether the people of Bermuda are happy with the replies to questions put in Parliament. He refused to answer basic, simple yes or no questions and in effect took the fifth.”

A row erupted last year after it was revealed that Mr Cannonier, Mr Pettingill and Tourism Minister Shawn Crockwell took a flight on a private jet paid for by a private firm and spent two nights in Washington at their expense.

The PLP said it was a breach of the code of conduct for Ministers, which says that offers of travel from non-governmental organisations should not normally be accepted.

The code also bans Ministers from accepting favours from parties in negotiation with, or seeking to enter into a contract, with Government.

Mr Cannonier said Mr Pettingill’s advice was that there was no conflict and that the trip was “an exchange of information” and not negotiations.

Opposition leader Marc Bean and Mr Burt then made separate allegations of corruption against the Premier in the House of Assembly in connection with Government’s plans to introduce casinos to Bermuda, which were protected by Parliamentary privilege.

But — after the claims were repeated in the broadcast media — Mr Cannonier filed a writ for slander against the two.

Mr Bean said yesterday: “It is clear by his actions that Premier Cannonier has no regard for the rules of the House of Assembly, the rulings of the Speaker and, by extension, the people of Bermuda.”