Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Robert Corbin’s letter published in SN on February 1 (‘Ramkarran should have declined nomination for Speaker in 2001’) .
Bias of the type defined by Mr Corbin, is a legal doctrine that applies to a judicial office, not a political one. The Speaker holds a political, not a judicial office. Consequently, while a Speaker is required to be impartial it has been traditionally accepted in Guyana and the Caribbean that accepting clientele in non-political matters from the governing party is not a conflict of interest and does not detract from the Speaker’s impartiality. If this was the case, Mr Trotman could not represent a member of the opposition or the AFC in court in a matter that has nothing to do with politics. Or, had I been a medical doctor, or an architect or engineer, I would have been precluded from accepting a government official as a patient or a government engineering agency as a client. This is how ridiculous Mr Corbin’s argument is, taking it to its logical conclusion.
The Speaker is not required not to have political views or not to hold a party position (though in developed Westminster democracies they do not) but in our context, he/she ought not to engage in partisan political activities. I dare Mr Corbin to point to one example in ten years where I publicly criticized the political views of the PNC or AFC. On the contrary he will find several where I called for measures to reduce crime, corruption and poverty, which he has also called for and often castigated the government about.
As far as my rulings are concerned, I gave most of them in writing and Mr Corbin has them all. Mr Corbin therefore had the opportunity to point to specific instances of bias in any of my rulings. He chose not to do so. I invite him to do so if he can find any. Also, he is aware of my many rulings against the government which he refrained from mentioning.
Mr Corbin and the PNC could have opposed my nomination as Speaker in 2001 and 2006. They neither nominated an alternative candidate nor opposed my nomination. All the while I was a Partner of Cameron & Shepherd and represented a few state agencies. The government is not among our retained clients. The Attorney General is, constitutionally, the legal representative of the government. I can only conclude that Mr Corbin’s accusations are contrived for the occasion.
Mr Trotman understands that he cannot hold the position of Leader of the AFC and Speaker at the same time. He said he will not seek re-election. I did not call on him to resign from the executive of the AFC.
But as Representative of the List he can recall an AFC member of parliament. As Speaker he cannot. The Speaker now holds an officially partisan political office on behalf of the AFC in relation to the National Assembly, over which he is required to preside impartially. If the AFC desires to recall one of its members of parliament, who is succumbing to the wiles of the PPP/C to cross the floor, as Mr Trotman alleges the PPP is improbably attempting, and as the reason he implied as wanting to remain poised in office to leap to the partisan defence of the AFC, does Mr Trotman as the partisan AFC Representative of the List write to Mr Trotman as the impartial Speaker? That is the procedure as Mr Corbin may well remember from the case of James McAllister, a PNCR1-G MP whom he recalled.
If Mr Corbin sees nothing wrong with this, then I conclude, and the public should, that these are the standards in our national life that the PNC/APNU now seeks to promote, having trashed the tradition relating to the Deputy Speaker.
As for my alleged ‘corrosive’ language, Mr Corbin should live with it. He has dished out far worse in his time.
Yours faithfully,
Hari Ramkarran