Speaker Trotman rules Rohee’s full rights and privileges to be recognised in future : -denying Rohee tantamount to rejecting Executive President in Parliament

Written by Gary Eleazer, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:53, Source

“HENCEFORTH, I would be recognising in Hon. Clement J. Rohee the full and privileged rights guaranteed under the Constitution to a Member of the National Assembly, and to that of a Minister of the Cabinet.” Those words represent the gist of the final ruling handed down yesterday by substantive Speaker of the National Assembly, the Honourable Raphael Trotman, in response to attempts by the Parliamentary Opposition to prevent Rohee from speaking in the House as Minister of Home Affairs.

“Refusing the right to a Minister to address the House is tantamount to refusing the President the right to speak in the House,” Trotman declared.

Having dominated the business of the National Assembly since July last year, the Speaker said, the issue has to be dealt with definitively, “as it is, in my opinion, beginning to affect the National Assembly’s ability to successfully carry out its work.”

Trotman said, “The matter of whether Minister Clement Rohee can be restrained from speaking, in his ministerial capacity by the National Assembly is really a simple one, (but) we have made it complex.”

The 65 Members of the National Assembly, inclusive of the Leader of the Political Opposition, the Honourable David Granger, have been informed of the ruling, but the House is also expected to be formally notified at the next sitting of the National Assembly.

In that ruling, Trotman said the motion that Granger piloted with intention to gag Minister Rohee runs contrary to the Guyana Constitution. In his 19-page ruling, he said that Granger’s motion, “though appearing correct in form, is, in my considered opinion, against the Constitution; the established practices, principles, customs and privileges of the Hon, Member Clement J. Rohee, M.P.; this House; and the Westminster parliamentary system that we subscribe to and practice.”

In handing down his decision, Trotman drew reference to a previous ruling by Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang on the matter, wherein he had indicated that “it is difficult to see how, in the face of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Speaker can prohibit a member (particularly an elected member) from speaking or making a presentation in the National Assembly on account of the absence of confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.”

According to Trotman, the constitutional provisions, “in the opinion of most, is sufficient to conclude the debate on the issue of whether the Minister, as a Member of Parliament -- or any Member of Parliament for that matter -- can be restrained in any manner whatsoever.”

He said the issue that falls to be considered is whether the House, acting through a majority, or unanimously, can impose sanctions on a Member; and if so, in what instances.

“I am of the firm opinion that the National Assembly can only exercise a supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction over a Member who has fallen into error of the Standing Orders,” he said in his ruling. Such authority, he said, cannot carry over to the ministerial portfolio of a member.

He added that “the decision to dismiss a Minister is solely that of the Executive President…. Likewise, the decision of a Minister to resign is solely that of the individual Minister.”

The Guyana Constitution is silent on the individual responsibility of a Minister, as against Cabinet collectively, “but it cannot be denied that Ministers are also individually responsible to the Parliament.”

The Speaker said it is easy to argue that if there is collective responsibility, then individual responsibility must be included as being within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution, to the extent that if there is a vote of no-confidence in a Minister, then that Minister is bound to resign. “This interpretation, however, does not appear to have been accepted within the Commonwealth …. On the contrary, it is perhaps just as easy to argue that if the framers of our Constitution intended individual Ministers to be responsible to the Parliament, they would have so stated.”

Expanding on whether it is inherent in the obligation of a Government to resign in face of a no-confidence motion, he said the same also applies to an individual Minister.

Trotman drew reference to an Australian experience which he said mirrors “that in Guyana with respect to the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs.” On that occasion, a Committee of Privileges of the Australian Parliament had determined that “the failure to resign did not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt, because the Resolution was non-binding and therefore unenforceable. “Further, the decision not to resign did not obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its duties and functions.”

The Speaker of the Australian Parliament, Mike Reynolds, on that occasion, had pronounced on the matter also and said “no-confidence motions passed against an individual Minister are non-binding.”

On the matter of when a minister resigns, Trotman said research has shown that, for the most part, there are three general categories of resignations of ministers; and “interestingly, the vote of no-confidence has not been proven to empirically establish that a minister must resign in such a circumstance.”

The Speaker, in illustrating established reasons for a resignation of a Minister, pointed to the following: personal error, such as when the Minister commits either a private indiscretion or political misjudgement; when the Minister cannot support a Government policy; or when the Minister is clearly directly responsible for a major error, and when found out, misleads the House.

On the matter of supremacy of one over the other, Trotman said that, in Guyana, the Presidency and National Assembly are creatures of the Constitution.

Neither can relate with each other outside of the manner prescribed within the Constitution, “and for that reason, the National Assembly cannot refuse to entertain a Member who is appointed by the Executive President as a Minister, except as permitted by the Constitution.”

Trotman moreover posited that, because all executive power vests in the President, a person designated by him as a Minister is, for all intents and purposes, “his representative.”

He therefore ruled that “it is my considered opinion that refusing the right to a Minister to address the House is tantamount to refusing the President the right to speak in the House -- a very unconstitutional and untenable situation.”

He suggested that the National Assembly “can refuse to listen, but it cannot restrict the right of the President to speak, or that of his representatives to speak and to fully participate in the business of the National Assembly.”