Speaker Raphael Trotman should convene the National Assembly as soon as possible, according to his predecessor Ralph Ramkarran, who says every day that goes by without a sitting amounts to a violation of the parliamentary rules.
Writing in his latest Conversation Tree column, published on his blog and in today’s Sunday Stabroek, the former Speaker bases his conclusion on the rule that the National Assembly is adjourned to the “next sitting day” when no date is named upon its adjournment and the fact that there is no procedure to reconvene outlined in the Standing Orders (SOs).
“…the Speaker was obliged to have convened the National Assembly on October 11 [the day after the parliamentary recess ended], pursuant to the authority of S.O 8(1),” Ramkarran writes.
“Having failed to do so, he should lose no further time and should convene the National Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity… Every day that goes by without a sitting of the National Assembly constitutes a violation of the Standing Orders. This is a matter, simple as it might appear, that is fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. There should be no dispute about something as basic as how and when the National Assembly can and should meet. This needs to be resolved now,” the former Speaker adds.
Following the conclusion of the two-month-long parliamentary recess, opposition party AFC has been pushing for the National Assembly to be reconvened in order to proceed with a debate and vote on its no-confidence motion against the government. The combined opposition’s one seat majority is enough to see the passage of the motion, which would trigger new elections within three months. As a result, the Donald Ramotar-led executive has been accused of deliberately stalling in setting a date for the next sitting—
a charge that it has denied.
According to SO 8(2), which caters for a sitting to be convened at the discretion of the Speaker, “If, during an adjournment of the Assembly, it is represented to the Speaker by the Government, or the Speaker is of the opinion, that the public interest requires that the Assembly should meet on a day earlier than that to which it stands adjourned, the Speaker may give notice accordingly and the Assembly shall meet at the time stated in such notice.”
Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs has said he has interpreted the Standing Order to mean that the Speaker can only convene the Assembly in the public interest once a date had been previously fixed. David Granger, leader of the main opposition coalition APNU, which has agreed to support the no-confidence motion, on Friday signalled that the coalition was inclined to accept this interpretation.
‘The next sitting day’
Ramkarran acknowledges the “confusion” about the procedure by which the Assembly is to be reconvened. He notes that the National Assembly is normally adjourned to a named date. However, quite often it is adjourned to a “date to be fixed” and in this circumstance, he says it is re-convened upon a request to the Speaker by the government, which nominates a date. Although there has been consultation with the opposition on reconvening in the past, he points out that this has not been consistent.
Before being amended in 2006, SO 8(1), which governs sittings of the National Assembly, provided that the Assembly “shall” meet every day, except Saturdays and Sundays.
However, the amended SO 8(1) now reads: “Save as otherwise provided by the Constitution or resolved by the Assembly upon a Motion moved by a Minister, the Assembly may sit every day except Saturdays and Sundays and, unless the Assembly otherwise decide, every adjournment shall be to the next sitting day.”
Ramkarran notes that while the amended SO replaces the more “peremptory” expression “shall sit” with “may sit,” it maintained the provision that the National Assembly must be adjourned to “the next sitting day” unless the Assembly otherwise decides.
It is Ramkarran’s contention that since there is no provision in the Standing Orders to reconvene the National Assembly if it is not adjourned to a named date, then “otherwise decide” can only mean that the National Assembly must adjourn to a named date otherwise there would be no way to reconvene. It can also mean that the National Assembly can adjourn without a date being named as opposed to a date to be fixed, he adds. “If this happens it would automatically re-convene on the ‘the next sitting day,’ subject, of course, to the administrative requirements that are necessary to get a sitting going,” he says.
“It is for good reason that no one has been given authority in the [Standing Orders] to fix a date to convene or re-convene the National Assembly. No one needs it. Each sitting concludes with a fixed resumption date, namely, the date named upon the adjournment, or ‘the next sitting day’ if no date is named,” he argues.
‘Should never have been allowed’
Ramkarran recognises that adjournment to “a date to be fixed” means that a process of arriving at a date and then re-convening has to be undertaken, although no one has the authority to do so. He further acknowledges that this practice has taken place over many decades. “All stakeholders assumed that it did not violate any rule. Now under scrutiny for the first time, it is clear that it does. It ought never to have been allowed by the current or past Speakers, myself included. I take responsibility for my own omission,” he further says.
For Ramkarran, an adjournment to the “next sitting day” can only make sense if it is interpreted to mean the date which is named upon the adjournment, or alternatively, if no date is named, “the next day when the National Assembly is capable of sitting.”
Using this line of reasoning, he says that since the National Assembly is normally adjourned for the recess without a date being named, then “the next sitting day” has to be October 11. He adds that the Speaker is precluded from consulting with anyone because the “next sitting day” is provided for in the Standing Orders and its meaning is clear. “It cannot be changed by negotiation. The Standing Order speaks for itself,” he adds.
