Dear Editor,
I refer to the PPP press release of January 17, 2012; Mr Ralph Ramkarran’s press release which appeared on the page 3 of the Stabroek News of Wednesday January 18, under the caption, ‘PPP/C addressing voter loss‘; and, the news item which appeared on page 2 of Stabroek News January 23, under the caption, ‘Trotman cannot remain as AFC List Rep.‘
Mr Ralph Ramkarran in a volley of corrosive language intending to demean the integrity of the leaders of A Partnership For National Unity (APNU), and the Alliance For Change (AFC), accused them of “machinations and conspiracies” in their consultations leading up to the appointment of Mr Trotman as Speaker of the National Assembly.
My Shorter Oxford dictionary (1973) volume 1 defines ‘machination’ as “contrivance, intrigue, plotting”; and ‘conspiracy‘ as “a combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose . . . or to do some criminal or illegal act.“
Is Mr Ramkarran so stung by his rejection as Speaker because he had earlier suffered a major rejection by the executive of his own party to be its presidential candidate that it caused him to make such an irrational and caustic attack on the alleged “conspirators”?
According to his own logic, Mr Ramkarran, as an active member of the Central Committee of the PPP and a prolific writer expounding the views of that party while holding the office of Speaker, was disqualified from holding that office. It is significant that during those twelve years he found no inconsistency or “machinations” in relation to his party, neither did he find any need to reconcile his roles as Speaker and leading PPP official.
More significant, however, is that Mr Ramkarran, as head of the law firm Cameron & Shepherd, which is in receipt of fees for legal services, should have been automatically disqualified from holding the office of Speaker so long as he and his firm continued to be in receipt of a direct pecuniary benefit (fees) from the government. Mr Ramkarran was nominated by and supported for election as Speaker in 2001, by the PPP government, and by reason of government’s majority in Parliament Mr Ramkarran was appointed Speaker in the 8th and 9th Parliaments. During that period Cameron & Shepherd was the recipient of pecuniary benefits from the government.
Mr Ramkarran should have disclosed that he was the recipient of financial benefits from the government and should have declined his nomination by the PPP for the office of Speaker from the time he was first nominated and elected on May 4, 2001.
It may well be argued that some of the rulings made by Mr Ramkarran during his tenure of office as Speaker, which have drawn the ire of the opposition parties, support the contention of ‘an appearance of bias.’ Apart from automatic disqualification for receipt of direct pecuniary benefit from the government, the test of bias is laid down as to “whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.”
Mr Ramkarran also speaks about conventions. What conventions is he seeking to apply to the Guyana Parliament? Certainly not the British Westminster model, as Guyana has long departed from many of those hallowed traditions. Perhaps he may better research the conventions of those European and other parliaments that have experienced the functioning of coalition governments. Assuming, however, that he is belatedly impressed with the British model, there is much to be learned from the last election in the United Kingdom. The now ruling Conservatives found a practical solution of finding compromises, including shared cabinet positions, to maintain their position in government and manage that democracy.
Has the loss of the position of Speaker of the National Assembly affected the usual logical thinking and pronouncements of the Speaker of the Eight and Ninth Parliaments?
Yours faithfully,
Robert H O Corbin
