Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman yesterday refuted the claim by main opposition APNU that he had first released his ruling on efforts to gag Minister Clement Rohee to the media before parliamentarians.
“The registry of the Parliament issued the ruling to every member of the house, with a covering letter both electronic and in written form… I was asked and I said, ‘Yes, you may issue to the press but make sure that the members get it first,’” Trotman said yesterday.
The ruling issued by Trotman last Friday came down against the opposition’s moves to gag Rohee in the National Assembly and said that the minister will be allowed to participate fully in parliamentary life.
APNU’s executives, in rejecting the ruling on Tuesday, had said that they also felt it was a breach of protocol that Trotman first presented the ruling to the media. “This unprecedented and undemocratic step in imposing his ruling on the Members of the National Assembly through the media and television without giving them a hearing in the National Assembly does not bode well for the future conduct of the people’s business in the National Assembly,” APNU MP Basil Williams said, reading from a statement.
Trotman stated that the Parliament Office’s registry personnel have informed that they followed his directive and that was what he will go with.
Trotman stressed, “I have no control over the registry but I did say to the registry to ensure that the press gets it because in the interest of transparency, I think that’s important. The registry has said to me that they have issued the ruling both in electronic form and in hard copy to every member of the House, before the press, and that is the understanding I’m going on,” he said.
He said that he could not say if his decision marks the end of the matter to “gag Rohee” in the National Assembly. “I don’t know. I have satisfied myself that I have done what is constitutionally correct,” said Trotman.
Further, the Speaker stated that he was warned that the decision might mean jeopardising his political career but given that he was confident in his stance, he went ahead and will live with whatever consequences. “I have satisfied my mind that I have done what is constitutionally correct… I took an oath to uphold the constitution of Guyana not to subvert it… it may be considered [the] politically-incorrect thing to do and certainly very knowledgeable people said to me, ‘You would be committing political suicide here’ and I understood that… I prefer to know I did what was constitutionally just and right, as against what is politically-correct,” he said.
Observers have noted that Trotman’s surprise ruling reversed earlier positions he had held.
Trotman earlier said that he would await a ruling of the court on a case that Attorney General Anil Nandlall brought challenging his decision to limit Rohee’s participation in Parliament until the Privileges Committee had ruled on the issue.
Trotman explained that he had continued to do research after an initial ruling as he was not convinced that the House had the power to pass and enforce the resolution proposed in the motion to gag the minister.
“I had anticipated that the court matter would have been wrapped up rather quickly. It seems to be going on indefinitely and knowing that and having the benefit of all my research persons with legal opinions speaking to me from around the Commonwealth and so forth, I felt personally, as Speaker, I felt that it would be an injustice to me to continue,” he said. “I had taken a decision because I was unsure that night. I was not invited to stop him from speaking that night. I took that decision personally so that I could satisfy myself… I was sufficiently satisfied that that decision could not hold [up] any longer,” he added.
Asked about the implications of the court now making a ruling to the contrary, he said then so be it but added that he still does not feel that the court should dictate to Parliament what should be done. “In my view, the court made a ruling and gave an opinion on the 11th January… I don’t know if the court will change that opinion. That opinion has already been granted.
What I am concerned about is whether or not the court has jurisdiction to continue to tell the Parliament what to do I don’t believe that it does,” he said.
