Dear Editor,
I seriously do not know which world Lincoln Lewis lives in (‘The House has to be guided by laws, standard practices and an agenda…’ SN, February 16). For Speaker Trotman to adjourn the National Assembly, the philistinism in the House from both the government and opposition had to be really atrocious, beyond the normal misconduct that passes for proper debate in Parliament. Guyanese do watch these shenanigans on TV and they see the complete ignorance and lack of decorum that go on in Parliament on a normal basis. It is high time this House that is supposed to represent the people behaved with more etiquette when representing the people’s business. Indeed, parliaments around the world are no bed of roses, but this is no excuse for the grave improprieties that are committed in them, just as there is no excuse for the loutishness of ours. There is great slackness in the behaviour of MPs in the Parliament and Mr Trotman is right to try to right this state of affairs by taking a stand.
This nonsense recurs because there is no personal accountability when the PPP, PNC and AFC leadership handpick MPs. If MPs in nations with first-past-the-post systems where they are directly elected in constituencies behaved in this manner, many would have lost their seats just for their clownishness. The Speaker’s role may not require complete impartiality but it is not a role of utter partiality. When those who voted for him conduct themselves in a manner that breaches the rules of the House or the laws of the land, the Speaker is obligated to defend the laws of the land and the people’s interests above those who put him there. Not because the PNC and AFC put Trotman there, must he be their lackey and be required to overlook their wrongful behaviour. While the House must be guided by standard practice, laws and an agenda, this does not prevent the Speaker from dealing with the bad behaviour of MPs and protecting the Parliament itself from all parties sitting there. I disagreed with the Chief Justice’s interim decision on Minister Rohee simply because Mr Rohee speaks in two different capacities in Parliament: as a member of the executive (as minister) and as a member of the legislature as an elected member of Parliament. The National Assembly can control the former but cannot restrict Mr Rohee from speaking in the latter capacity.
However, the government went to the courts to rule on this matter. Until the appeal is heard, the ruling stands. Until that time, Speaker Trotman is obliged to obey the law, and he did so rightly in allowing Mr Rohee to speak. Deputy Speaker Backer’s decision to override Mr Trotman’s ruling in his absence undermines the respectability of the National Assembly and the speakership.
Mr Lewis is wrong when he tries to assert that the executive rammed the Rohee matter down the legislature’s throats. I am no fan of the PPP but let us be clear that the PPP went to the courts and got its way there. Speaker Trotman is bound to respect the decision of the court until it is appealed.
The truth of the matter is that we all want a better balance of powers but the PNC constitution does not allow it and the only avenues are to run to the courts to get them to interpret the constitution in a more balanced light, until it is fixed.
All we hear from many in Guyana are complaints but no solutions. The Speaker is not a solution. Mr Lewis cannot blame the Speaker for not fixing a constitutionally decreed mess when solutions are available to the opposition and the PPP, for that matter. The constitution of Guyana cannot be interpreted in black and white, for that perspective favours and enables dictatorship and domination. Short of a reformed constitution, it is the courts which must infuse reasoning and interpretation to hopefully make our constitution more palatable. Mr Trotman should not be blamed for the boorish behaviour of parliamentarians.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
