The dispute over the motion put forward by PNCR-1G frontbencher Winston Murray during the late night debate stirred some of the MPs out of their slumber when Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh said that he was not prepared to argue about the merits or demerits of provisions in place for financial accountability as he disagreed with the decision by the Speaker of Parliament, Ralph Ramkarran to approve the motion for the Order Paper. Singh said the motion violated sections 171 of the constitution and Standing Order 25.
The motion proposed the limit under section 81 (3) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and according to Murray and AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan was meant to assure accountability and transparency given the fact that government was lending taxpayers money to businesses, including among others, hoteliers for the Cricket World Cup 2007 period, and to make certain that the monies were properly accounted for.
Ramkarran asked Singh on several occasions to indicate immediately how he had violated the Standing Orders or withdraw his statement. Singh sought to explain why he was of the view that the Speaker violated the Standing Orders but the Speaker insisted that he would not allow Singh to continue speaking unless he demonstrated how he reached his conclusion.
A 10-minute suspension of the sitting was then taken and on resumption Singh said he was willing to withdraw the statement but still wanted to explain the government’s position. Ramkarran said he would not allow the line of argument that Singh was putting forward since questioning the Speaker’s decision had to be done by way of a motion. Singh declined to proceed.
In a statement he issued to the National Assembly yesterday afternoon on Singh’s argument, Ramkarran said that one of the best known rules of parliamentary procedure, familiar to parliamentarians worldwide, is that the conduct of certain officials, including Speakers, cannot be questioned except by way of a motion tabled for that purpose. This ought to be known by every parliamentarian, Ramkarran said.
In his statement, Ramkarran said that prior to the start of the session on Wednesday he learnt that his decision to allow Murray’s motion would be questioned and he spoke with Leader of the House, Prime Minister Sam Hinds and two other members of the ruling party and expressed his concern at the prospect that his decision would be the subject of criticism during the debate.
Ramkarran said he received assurances that the Standing Orders would be observed but 10 minutes into his speech Singh said the motion did not conform to the Standing Orders which constituted a direct criticism of his decision.
After Singh did not explain the violations the sitting was suspended for ten minutes. Ramkarran said that during the suspension Singh informed him that he was prepared to withdraw his assertion but that he wished to proceed in demonstrating that the motion did not qualify because it violated Article 171 of the constitution. In this regard Ramkarran also informed him that this constituted a criticism of his decision and he would not allow him to speak.
On resumption Singh withdrew his allegations on the violation of the Standing Orders but proceeded to speak of the violation of the constitution at which point the Speaker said he would not allow him to raise the issue and Singh declined to continue with his speech.
Right to table motion
Ramkarran said that when a member was dissatisfied with a decision of the Speaker, the member has a right and opportunity to table a motion challenging the decision. Such a motion would receive priority over the original motion or issue at stake. If the National Assembly agrees with the challenge then the challenged motion would not be proceeded with.
“There was ample time for the Hon. Member to take this course but he declined to do so and sought to unwisely proceed on an alternative course which was totally impermissible,” he said.
Stating that the rule against challenging decisions of the Speaker exists to protect the dignity and integrity of the National Assembly, he said if Singh were to proceed he would have had to sit through a lecture by the minister on the provisions of the constitution “in enforced and painful silence because I am not permitted to enter the debate.”
Singh “otherwise a brilliant scholar” and “a gentleman” was not a lawyer while he, Ramkarran, had “a nodding acquaintance with the constitution”.
Ramkarran explained that on receiving the motion the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs wrote Murray stating his view that the motion did not qualify. Murray then replied disagreeing with the Clerk who then wrote to the Chief Parliamentary Draughtsman Cecil Durjon.
Durjon in his reply to the Clerk said the motion was not seeking to amend section 81 (3) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act but that “in the light of article 171 of the constitution a different picture emerges.”
On receipt of Durjon’s letter, Ramkarran said that the Clerk referred the matter to him for his decision. He concluded that the motion did not violate Article 171 and out of courtesy wrote Attorney General Doodnauth Singh setting out his views and requested a response. He did not get a “considered response” but the Attorney General told him that he agreed with Durjon.
Stating that he was the sole authority charged with responsibility of approving motions, Ramkarran said that he was not required to consult with anyone except where he required legal advice. In this case, he said he sought the legal opinion of one of his colleagues who unhesitatingly confirmed his opinion and he therefore permitted the motion.
In his argument against the motion that brought the Speaker’s intervention, Hinds said that it was necessary that the government maintain its discretionary powers and to exercise transparency on debt forgiveness.
In any case, he said that all debts forgiven have to come before a very active Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.
Wrapping up the debate, Murray said that setting a limit on the debt aggregate amount of debt obligation was meant to strengthen accountability and transparency in a system in which discretion was left to the Minister of Finance who makes the determination.
The Speaker’s sharp exchange with Singh follows one several weeks earlier he had with Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee who had threatened extra-parliamentary action against him.
