Dear Editor,
The current state of the National Assembly and the Speaker’s rulings are demonstrations that he is out of his depth as Speaker of the House. On the specific issue of the motion of no-confidence and the gagging of the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, the House has passed a motion of no-confidence against the minister and regardless of how the Speaker or any member of the House may think or feel, the decision is final and binding on everyone until such time as the House or the courts of the land indicate that it be changed.
On the issue of the gagging of the minister, the Speaker referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges to determine. The Attorney General challenged the Speaker’s ruling in the court. The Speaker subsequently ruled that the activity of the Privileges Committee would await the ruling of the court. Without the benefit of the court’s ruling or the Privileges Committee’s pronouncement the Speaker has ascribed to himself a new role of judge and jury, and proceeded to pronounce that the decision of the House is unconstitutional and he shall permit the minister to speak.
Interestingly, the Speaker said: “Because all executive power vests in the President, a person designated by him as a ‘Minister’ is for all intents and purposes, his ‘representative.’ It is my considered opinion that refusing the right to a Minister to address the House is tantamount to refusing the President the right to speak in the House; a very unconstitutional and untenable situation. The National Assembly can refuse to listen, but it cannot restrict the right of the President to speak, or that of his representatives, to speak and to fully participate in the business of the National Assembly.”
It is clear from what the Speaker is saying he does not understand democracy and how it works. The motion of no-confidence was a reflection of the will, opinion and desire of the people, through their elected representatives. And if the President, who is the servant of the people, is not prepared to respect the will of the people, and the Speaker of the House has ascribed to himself the role of a judge in supporting the President’s refusal to respect the people’s will then democracy is under serious threat in this society.
Guyanese are confronted with inconsistent and conflicting rulings on one issue and this act has stymied the process within the National Assembly, created undue acrimony and contributed to further division in the society. The ruling will not help but will open wider pandora’s box. No speaker or chairman for any meeting can be giving two or three rulings on one issue. Doing this demonstrates a mangled understanding of the issue and the thought processes informing the decision. When a decision is taken it can only be changed by the organisation itself or the courts. In fact, when the Speaker said that he will await the ruling of the court before he allows the House to proceed, he signalled the right direction by giving the court, which has a constitutional responsibility in the society, the opportunity to pronounce and help the process.
For the Speaker to then arbitrarily decide that he shall pronounce in the absence of the Privileges Committee and the court brings into question his understanding of how an organisation works and his role as Speaker. Forty-three years after republican status, in our tenth
parliament we are doing worse than we were in every one that preceded the current one. The opposition has alternatives at its disposal and I recommend the will of the people be used rather than in this instance bogging down the court. And they are as follows:
1. Challenge the Speaker’s ruling in and out of parliament.
2. Leave the Speaker in his position, let him have his way with the convoluted and inconsistent ruling, and allow Mr Rohee to speak as Minister of Home Affairs, and every time he speaks let him talk to the empty opposition benches. And when the Minister proposes any motion or bill the opposition should return to their seats and vote against it.
If the President, who is elected by the people to serve the people, has decided he is not going to listen to the voices of the people, and the Speaker is prepared to facilitate this contempt for the people by taking undemocratic routes, then both he and the President are equally contemptuous of the people and the instruments/institutions they have established to govern and protect their wellbeing.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
