Dear Editor,
The Speaker in Parliament or Congress is elected by a majority vote, and is expected to lead in realising an agenda set by the majority with the input of the minority, with the intent that the society shall benefit from the best ideas, since no individual or specific group has all the answers to resolving the problems and influencing the desires of the people. And behind this backdrop the Speaker needs to be cognisant that he has to give leadership at all times and whatever act/action he engages in, the same falls within the purview of the laws and standard practices within the House. Heckling, thumping of tables and chairs, fighting, throwing down the mace, throwing of flour and other so-called disruptive and unruly behaviour occur in legislatures across continents, and what was seen in Parliament on Thursday is nothing new or unusual.
For the Speaker then to abruptly adjourn the House because he considers an aspect of the MPs’ behaviour unacceptable is not considered a norm in heterogeneous legislative society and puts into question leadership and temperament. The Speaker must also be reminded that this issue is not about him, for it was the APNU and the AFC that voted for him. This support, as with any support, was given on the condition that the constituents’ agenda will be facilitated. And it is expected that as Speaker he will lead in ensuring that the principal agenda of the groups that elected him be advanced in the House, even as he takes on board suggestions and modifications from the opposite side of the House. Further, to entertain the thought that a Speaker’s role is impartial is to abrogate commitment to the people who have given their support. Impartiality only relates to upholding the law, standard practices and decisions taken by the House, not taking a hands-off role to ensuring the parliamentary agenda of the supporting constituents.
It is important to reiterate that the House has to be guided by laws, standard practices and an agenda and not how a Speaker feels about a situation. This House is becoming a mockery in the sense that a motion was passed to remove the barriers preventing citizens from being in the immediate external parameters of the compound, yet the police continue to erect these barriers even as the responsible minister has failed in his duty to ensure the decision was implemented. That motion, as with any motion which has been passed, communicates the expressed will of the people, and in this instance they are being denied the right to stand within the immediate environs of Parliament to listen to their representatives debate matters that will impact their wellbeing or bring any matter to the representatives’ attention. One may want to argue there is a public gallery in the building, but this space can only accommodate a finite number. Further, the public thoroughfare around the building was never meant to exclude the people and more so deny them the right to express themselves to their elected representatives, and respect must be given to this reality.
This nation is reminded that during the PNC administration the opposition, including the PPP, civil society and all stood in front of this very area, engaging in various forms of protest. The society is yet to hear from the Speaker on his plans to correct the infraction.
On the issue of the no-confidence motion moved against Clement Rohee in his capacity as Minister of Home Affairs, any National Assembly, organisation has the right to say whether it has confidence in a minister or executive. Balloting by its very nature is a reflection of who the electorate has confidence in to manage their business. When Mr Rohee was sent to Parliament that act is consistent with his position as Member of Parliament and not that of a minister. They are two separate and distinct issues and must be treated as such. For anyone to take the position that the National Assembly is wrong in saying that it does not have confidence in Mr Rohee’s performance as Minister of Home Affairs is to display a level of ignorance about how organisations operate or else to engage in bullying tactics in the hope that they can silence the voice of reason. For President Ramotar and others to continue embracing their current posture confirms their contempt for Parliament and the society in general. And on this matter the Speaker cannot flip-flop since a motion that puts Mr Rohee’s performance as a minister under the radar has been passed requesting of him to do the decent thing and resign. So to allow him to speak to matters pertaining to Home Affairs which he has been censored for is a demonstration of contempt for the motion and sacredness of the House. What is clearly unfolding is that the Speaker is prepared to have the House make rules and break them at the same time, which can be dangerous for the future.
As an observer of the statements that are emanating from the House the clear impression is given that there are some who are bent on denying the National Assembly the right to its oversight role and on too many occasions seek to put the executive or President as the final operative for governance in society. The issue of Clement Rohee is signalling very clearly that the executive is saying to the National Assembly that the people’s representatives can pass whatever motion, make whatever rule or law they choose, the executive shall not respect or obey, when clearly such action constitutes a violation of the constitution which gives Parliament the supreme role for the people’s business. And on another matter, parliamentary immunity does not translate to lawlessness, and collectively the society must work at stamping this out.
Every MP has within his/her possession a copy of the Guyana Constitution and when statements are made on matters of governance, rights and the rule of law, they must be challenged to provide the evidence, and if possible cite best practices in support of their arguments. This society will be better served when their elected officials are held accountable to display to them their understanding of an issue, rather than them being allowed to take shield under parliamentary immunity and mislead this nation by flaunting their lawlessness and being allowed to get away with it. The Speaker can serve this nation best if he strives to set such standard in the House.
Government (executive, legislature and judiciary) has a greater responsibility in upholding the laws for it ought to be setting the standards to influence better behaviour in society. As such the people must hold it accountable, for if laws and rules are created to govern our behaviour we cannot be convenient in honouring them. It is either black or white; there is no grey area about it. You cannot want to uphold the rules and/or laws when such suit your purpose and openly flout them when they do not serve your agenda. It is because of this behaviour this society has degenerated to this level.
If the Speaker wants history to write that he has performed creditably, it is important for him to take note as to the way the business of the House is handled under his leadership.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
