The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) yesterday complained that Speaker Barton Scotland denied its request for an extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly, which it suggested is part of a plot to “muzzle” the opposition.
“The Speaker has ruled that the opposition lacks the locus standi to make to the Speaker such a request contained in the [the PPP/C’s]) communication… even if the request was in order, the Speaker believes that the public engaged will suffer no prejudice by the postponement of the sitting,” Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira told a press conference yesterday.
The National Assembly had been scheduled to be convened yesterday but government successfully sought a postponement. The postponement was sought to facilitate the attendance of government members at the Summit of South American-Arab Countries in Saudi Arabia.
A date for the next sitting is yet to be announced.
Teixeira explained that on Monday she wrote the Speaker on behalf of Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo and appealed to him, under the requisite Standing Orders, to convene as soon as possible an extraordinary sitting of the National Assembly in the public’s interest to debate the matters that are pending on the National Assembly’s agenda, including opposition matters. She said the PPP/C was willing to have the sitting scheduled for any day in November and the party is upset that its request was not granted.
She pointed out that the recent ministerial salary increase was a matter of urgent public importance since, from the PPP/C’s perspective, it is an issue that the populace feels needs to be addressed and at the highest level. Against this background, she feels the denial of the party’s request is part of an orchestrated plan.
The PPP/C has criticised the payment of the salary increases to its parliamentarians as illegal—as they had indicated they would not accept them—and it had hoped to table a motion for an urgent debate on the all the increases and to place a stay on their implementation until the National Assembly resolves the issue.
The PPP calls for the National Assembly to annul The Ministers, Members of the National Assembly and Special Offices (Emoluments) Order No.16 of 2015, which provides for the increase.
However, this was not allowed by the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs, who had explained that the motion could not be laid until after the Order, made by the Minister of Finance, was laid in the House. This was done and the way is now paved for the motion to be heard at the fourth sitting of the National Assembly, which is scheduled as Members’ Day, when the government’s business does not have priority.
Teixeira believes the delay is meant to frustrate the PPP/C and delay the motion until January. “This deliberate postponement of the sitting of the House… basically says they are killing the motion of the opposition for a reversion of the salary increases. This is deliberate, conscious planned, orchestrated, engineered—you pick the adjective—to ensure the opposition in this Parliament is muzzled,” she said.
“This is a situation where you are postponing from a date to never-never land… we might not have our sitting, as the opposition, until sometime in January and if this doesn’t worry the Guyanese people it should… one thing a democratic Parliament does not do is try to muzzle the opposition,” she added.
Asked if the then PPP government’s prorogation of Parliament last year was not an attempt to silence the then opposition, Teixeira said she believed that the comparison was wrong. “The two issues are not the same. This is an AFC line. It is a red herring, an absolute red herring. They talk about red herrings, I’ll tell them about red herrings. This is about a motion to debate while a Parliament is sitting… to discuss an issue to do with an order of giving ministers salary increases. There is no comparison,” an agitated Teixeira stressed.
Asked if the request for the sitting was to take voting advantage in the absence of government members, which would give the PPP a majority, Teixeira said it was not her place to keep government in Parliament during a sitting. “I have been Chief Whip, madam, for the government and have [had] extraordinary difficulties making sure members are in the Parliament for key issues and the travelling itineraries of government officials. Trust me on this one… if there is a matter of grave importance to government, it behooves that government to come and protect and defend and be righteous on this position,” she said.
“It is not my job to get 33 people in the government there. Therefore, you are telling me [by] inference that it is more important to travel but what will happen if the Chief Whip cannot make sure all members are there? Does that mean that this parliament will not be meeting,” she questioned.
