Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Nov 25, 2012 Editorial
Two weeks ago, we wrote in this space (Disorder in the House) that our political parties had arrived at a Mexican stand-off. “The inability for any one party to advance their position safely is a condition common to any standoff; in a Mexican standoff, there is additionally no “safe” way for any party to withdraw from its position, making the standoff effectively permanent. While neither side has since budged, the situation has deteriorated into seeming chaos.
The entire edifice of parliamentary governance is built on the adherence to rules that are adumbrated in its Standing Orders (S.O.). Almost every contingency is covered by a rule – each designed for consistent decision-making. Order arises out of consistency and predictability. Parliamentarians do not speak to each other; they speak through the Speaker. “MP’s who believe that a breach of the rules of the House of Commons has occurred, or who want clarification on the rules, stand up and say “Point of Order, Mr. Speaker”. The point of order should then be stated and the Speaker gives a ruling on the interruption.” The last is a statement by the Parliament of the UK.
But last Thursday, the Speaker continued with interpretations of the Standing Orders that were, sadly, idiosyncratic at best. In the previous sitting, misinterpreting S.O. 47(4), he refused to suspend the entire Opposition who were in contempt of his ruling to allow the Minister of Home Affairs to speak.
In the latest sitting, the Mexican Stand-off was broken in favour of the Opposition when the Speaker allowed Opposition Member of Parliament, Basil Williams, to interrupt Minister Rohee who had the floor. The interruption was ostensibly on a ‘point of order’ but Mr. Williams could not state the particular Point of order.
The Speaker was on somewhat firmer ground when he ruled that the sub judice rule, under which the government objected to the resuscitation of the ‘no-confidence’ motion in Rohee, was not absolute. He failed to point out, however, that the Speaker should relax the sub judice rule on ministerial conduct only in exceptional circumstances such as on “matters concerning issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life.”
More pertinently, no exception can be made when the said matter in court is the identical one before parliament. In this instance parliament is directly subverting the jurisdiction of the court.
The Speaker accepted the motion of the Leader of the Opposition to prevent the Minister of Home Affairs from speaking, by maintaining rightly that parliament has its own regulations. But he would know that free speech is the most important parliamentary privilege and it cannot be lightly abrogated.
There is no point in this privilege unless the MP sought to be muzzled be informed as to precisely what utterance of his is being censured.
Consequently, the option to send the motion to the Committee of Privileges was totally out of order. The Committee for Privileges is a select committee with the remit to make recommendations to the House on complaints of breaches of parliamentary privilege. Apart for the need for specificity in the alleged violation of one or more parliamentary privileges, according to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice the device should be used (1) “In any event as sparingly as possible; and (2) only when satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of interference with the performance of their respective functions”.
It is still to be explained exactly how preventing Minister Rohee from initiating debate on the Firearms Act was “essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of interference with the performance of their respective functions”.
It would appear that the Speaker is using a hammer to kill a fly on the brow of the Rule of Law.
It might end up destroying the latter even as the former flits away.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]