A CONSTANT SOURCE OF EXASPERATION
February 10, 2013, By chris, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom , Source
Things could not get more confusing in the National Assembly. No wonder we have situations where both sides of the House have had cause to walkout of the House.
The government walked out of the National Assembly because of the failure of the opposition to work towards consensus on a matter, and most recently the majority opposition marched out because the Minister of Home Affairs was allowed to make a statement to the House.
This walkout took place despite the opposition once claiming that it was not opposed to the member speaking, and even contending that they had allowed him to vote in the Assembly which they said was a form of speech. Talk about nonsensical semantics! It seemed that the opposition was not arrogating to itself the right of a member to vote in the House.
The opposition continues to uphold the untenable position that Mr. Rohee can speak in the House as a member, but not as the Minister of Home Affairs.
The absurdity of this position has escaped their notice. The honourable gentleman enjoys the right to speak, regardless of whether he was appointed a minister. He is foremost a member of the Assembly, and having been appointed a minister, is required by to the National Assembly to provide explanations to the National Assembly, by virtue of the principle of ministerial responsibility, which ironically is the very principle which the opposition so misguidedly used as the basis for passing a motion of no-confidence in the minister.
Under collective responsibility, there cannot be a motion within the National Assembly against a minister, because the government stands or falls on the basis of such motions. A motion of no-confidence against a minister represents a motion of no-confidence against the government and should trigger the dissolution of parliament and new elections.
The motion was however entertained and debated, despite the fact that the subject matter of the motion formed part of the terms of reference of a Commission of Inquiry which the very opposition had demanded. The opposition was eating its cake and having it too.
Having used their razor-slim majority to railroad their motion of no-confidence through the National Assembly, in their desire to make the minister the “fall- guy” for the Linden tragedy, they demanded that the government comply with the ruling. When it was ruled that the motion was not binding on the government, they resorted to having the minister gagged, a most contemptible thing for any side of the House to demand, considering that by its very nature the House is the highest deliberative forum in the land.
The opposition parties were outraged when the Speaker ruled that the minister could not be denied the right to speak. However, there was a caveat to the ruling to the effect that no action could be taken against the minister unless there was a gag motion before the House.
The opposition wasted little time in clutching to that caveat. It filed a censure motion seeking to have the minister prevented from speaking. In that motion, no allegation of contempt was argued.
In a most controversial ruling, the Speaker referred the motion to the Committee of Privileges. This despite the fact that it remained unclear as to just what rule or privilege the minister had breached. Things got more confounding, because the Standing Orders of the National Assembly had in the past indicated that before a matter can be referred to the Committee of Privileges by the Speaker, there first had to be a motion to that effect and that the Speaker had to be satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused.
Since it is difficult to comprehend what privileges the minister had breached, it was hard to understand just what charge the minister was answering before the Committee of Privileges.
Amazingly, also, a restriction was placed on the minister from speaking in the Assembly until such time as the matter before the Committee of Privileges was dispensed with.
Things became more bewildering by reports in the media which suggest that the opposition’s motion was referred to the Committee of Privileges so that they can decide whether they can deliberate on the matter.
This is strange-sounding, because it is for the Speaker to decide on whether a censure motion is justified for referral to the Committee of Privileges. It is not for those who will act as jury on a complaint to decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The Committee of Privileges has not yet determined the matter. Therefore it remains patently unfair for the temporary restrictions to be retained against the minister, more so in light of a court ruling on the subject of the minister’s right to speak in the National Assembly.
While the National Assembly enjoys sovereignty, this is not absolute, and the courts have exercised the right to ensure that constitutional guarantees are not trampled upon in the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty. But even further, it is an imperative for the National Assembly to set an example of fairness and judiciousness in the exercise of its right to control its own internal affairs.
In this context, there will be persons within the government who will view the most recent decision of the Speaker to allow the Minister of Home Affairs to read a statement to the National Assembly as an attempt to ensure this type of fair play and judiciousness.
The opposition were however peeved and walked out. Perhaps everyone should walkout and bring an end to a parliament which continues to be a constant source of exasperation.
