AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan says that he will write to Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman urging him to set a date for the sitting of the National Assembly so that a vote on an AFC-led motion of no-confidence against the government can take place.
“I will now formally write the Speaker and indicate to him that he should utilise the opinion given by former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran…and also utilise the argument that as head of the legislative branch, that he must utilise his authority under the doctrine of separation of powers to ensure that the legislative branch is not subverted by the delays of an executive branch member, namely the Prime Minister not calling it (the sitting),” Ramjattan told Stabroek News yesterday.
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.
Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs has suggested that under the Standing Orders, the government has to fix a date before any sitting can be called. 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.
Trotman, meantime, has told Stabroek News that he has not sought legal advice and added that it is the function of the Clerk to determine whether legal advice is necessary.
However, former two-term Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran in his column in the Sunday Stabroek yesterday said that Trotman should convene the National Assembly as soon as possible and every day that goes by without a sitting amounts to a violation of the parliamentary rules. Trotman’s predecessor in the speakership position based 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).
Neither Granger nor Trotman could be contacted by Stabroek News yesterday for comment on Ramkarran’s position.
A lot of sense
Ramjattan told Stabroek News that he was going to write to Trotman formally. He said that Ramkarran’s arguments make a lot of sense and he also pointed out that the leader of the legislative branch is the Speaker and he must not allow the House to be subordinated by the executive branch on so important a matter.
In his Sunday Stabroek column, Ramkarran wrote that in the absence of any procedure to reconvene the Assembly and in light of the ruling that the National Assembly is adjourned to the “next sitting day,” Trotman should convene the National Assembly as soon as possible.
Ramkarran acknowledged the “confusion” about the procedure by which the Assembly is to be reconvened. He noted 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 noted 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 Assem-bly 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 added. “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 said.
“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 argued.
Isaacs, meantime, has quoted 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.”
Isaacs has said that 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 and he has written to APNU stating that setting a date for the sitting of the House cannot be forced through lobbying.
Isaacs told Stabroek News last week that it was not possible in his view for the Speaker to set a date and that the Speaker only had the authority to adjust a date should the public interest arise. He said that as far as he was concerned, there was nothing within the Standing Orders that would allow the opposition to potentially call a sitting of the National Assembly. He noted that the Standing Order 8 (2) had a “catch” that ensured the Speaker would only have the authority to call an earlier sitting once the government had set a date. No date was set for resumption following the annual parliamentary recess which has only just concluded.
Rather surprised
Ramjattan told Stabroek News yesterday that he is “rather surprised” that the Clerk on matters of legal interpretation is going to interpret for a Speaker who is far more qualified in a legal manner than the Clerk. He added that when the situation is not clear, attorneys have to flesh it out so that it will not result in a ludicrous interpretation. The AFC leader said that sometimes all events are not foreseen by the makers of the law. According to Ramjattan, what was put forward by the Clerk, “obviously does not make sense.”
“We must not be bound by the Clerk’s opinion on this matter,” he said. He emphasized the importance of the no-confidence motion and said that after the parliamentary recess ended, the House should have been reconvened immediately to deal with the matter. Ramjattan recalled that he thought it best to get the combined opposition to “plead the case” that the sitting be held on October 22 or 24 and was surprised by Granger’s position that it was out of his hands. He said that he disagreed with Granger’s assessment. “We were not elected simply to wait a while until the executive sees it fit to call a sitting,” he asserted. The AFC had written Granger seeking APNU’s support to press Trotman to convene a sitting of Parliament, considering that together they control a majority in Parliament.
The AFC leader said that he will formally write Trotman on the matter in light of Ramkarran’s column as well as the doctrine of the Separation of Powers. Moreover, he said, referring to the no-confidence motion, the business of the House is of paramount importance that parliament must be convened for it. He noted that based on conventions, even during a period of recess, “they can come out of recess to do such a motion.”
Ramjattan said that the government has told the AFC to “bring it on” but “now that we have brought it on, their fellows are running away.” Ramjattan declared that the government is scared and do not want to call a sitting and this highlights the hypocritical nature of the PPP.
