A Partnership for National Unity this afternoon condemned a ruling by Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman on the no-confidence campaign against Home Minister Clement Rohee as riddled with errors, contradictory and of questionable legal soundness.
The ruling issued by Trotman on Friday without prior notice came down against the opposition moves to muzzle Rohee and said that the Minister will be allowed to participate fully in parliamentary life.
In a brief rebuttal this afternoon, APNU said “The document is, unfortunately, replete with inaccuracies, of doubtful legal soundness and contradicts the documented positions previously taken by the Speaker.”
The APNU statement also called into question the circulation of the ruling as it said it was unprecedented for an edict like this to be publicly released before presentation to the National Assembly.
The APNU position could spark a showdown in Parliament and make the Speaker’s position tenuous. The Speaker had previously said that if either side expressed no-confidence in him he would resign.
APNU’s statement pointed out errors and contradictions in the Speaker’s ruling.
It said: “The document claims that the Speaker was of the view that the National Assembly wanted to inhibit the Minister of Home Affairs from performing his Ministerial functions. The reality is that, as a consequence of his dismal performance and failures over the last six (6) years, the Majority in the National Assembly passed a Motion of No Confidence in the competence of the incumbent to be responsible for the security of the Nation.
“The Speaker claims that, on Thursday 7th February 2013, the Minister wanted to make a statement on the security sector. However, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, who were, at the time, meeting with the Speaker, were informed that the Minister wanted to make a statement on the attack, by well armed bandits claiming to be Police, on the General Secretary of the PNCR. The Leader of the Opposition did not agree to this. In any event, the Minister, on being allowed to speak, made no such statement!
“It is evident that the document prematurely anticipated the awaited decisions of the learned Chief Justice and the conclusion of the deliberations of the National Assembly Committee of Privileges”, APNU said.
Other observers have noted that the Speaker’s ruling came out of the blue and reversed earlier positions he had held.
