Dear Editor,
I write to provide some clarity on the resolution on the death of a former Member of Parliament, Mr. Abdul Kadir.
Local parliamentary practice dictates that whenever a former or sitting Member of Parliament is deceased, the Clerk of the National Assembly is to draft a motion of sympathy which must be sent to the party of the deceased for their assent. Notice is then given by the party for the motion to be an item on the Order Paper.
This is what occurred in the case of the passing of the late Mr. Kadir.
The motion read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED
That this National Assembly records its deep regret on the death of Mr. Abdul Kadir, on 28th June, 2018, and pays tribute to his dedicated service to the Parliament of Guyana as a Member of Parliament where he served in the Eighth Parliament, from 17th April, 2001 to 2nd May, 2006, and to the people of Guyana;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the National Assembly directs that an expression of its sympathy be conveyed to his sorrowing widow, children and relatives.”
The debate on sympathy motions is to acknowledge the contributions of late Members to the Parliament of Guyana and to the people of Guyana. It is done with no other intent. It should be further noted that the motion on the death of the late Mr. Kadir was innocently drafted by the Clerk, as has been the convention in circumstances of death of former or sitting Members.
As the Clerk of the National Assembly, I wish to convey my profound regret for any unintentional offence this course of action may have caused.
I hope this letter brings a calm to the storm which emerged from the motion being put and carried by the National Assembly.
Yours faithfully,
S.E.Isaacs
Editor’s note: This letter dated April 30th, 2019 was received by Stabroek News by hand yesterday. It had apparently been sent earlier to other media houses.
