Dear Editor,
I have duly noted the press release issued by the Speaker of the National Assembly, in which he accused me of being ‘mischievous’ for submitting a motion to discuss oil spill liability coverage, and for ‘grandstanding’ and ‘playing to an audience’. Regrettably, the Speaker’s conclusions are based on biased and unfair assumptions. As someone who is entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the rules and procedures of the National Assembly, it is disappointing that the Speaker would make such unfounded allegations, taking into account that he did not give me the opportunity to lay my case before the House, to show that it was a matter of definite urgent public importance.
The Speaker’s remarks confirm his bias, and they reveal that he is more interested in grandstanding than ensuring that the procedures of the National Assembly are maintained and followed in the execution of his duties. His aspersions are indicative of his lack of impartiality and fairness, which are essential qualities for anyone in a position of Speaker of National Assemblies or Parliaments, in democracies.
The records of the Parliament of Guyana show that since the beginning of the 12th Parliament of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, the APNU+AFC has attempted on six (6) occasions to seek leave of the Assembly to discuss matters of definite urgent public importance under Standing Order 12. However, all of these motions were disallowed by Speaker Manzoor Nadir. He is very consistent with disallowing our submissions under Standing Order 12 but inconsistent with the procedure of disallowing.
While the Speaker is entitled to disallow motions that do not meet, in his opinion, the criteria for definite urgent public importance, the procedure used to disallow the motion to discuss oil spill liability coverage was different from the way the other requests were disallowed. The Speaker did not call on me to make my case before the Assembly as to why I believed the matter under consideration met the criteria for definite urgent public importance. On previous occasions he invited the members to make their case before the House and subsequently ruled. In this instance, he ruled without any consideration.
I attempted several times to seek the Speaker’s attention and ask for clarity regarding the court case. However, the Speaker deliberately ignored me and showed no interest in hearing what I had to ask. For a moment I thought I was in a dictatorship. When I finally had the opportunity to stand on my feet and move a separate motion, I still attempted to seek clarity, but the Speaker disregarded my request and demanded that I proceed with the matter at hand. This incident serves as further evidence of the Speaker’s inconsistency in his actions.
As a young MP, I have read extensively about the Parliament of Guyana and its history. I have studied the leadership qualities of Speakers such as Sase Narain, Ralph Ramkaran, Raphael Trotman, and Barton Scotland, who valued their character and integrity above their political party affiliation. It is my belief that we need more leaders like them who can uphold the rules and procedures of the National Assembly and ensure that all MPs are treated equally regardless of their age, race or party affiliation.
Sincerely,
Ganesh Mahipaul, M.P.