APNU stands alone … Firmly rejects Speaker’s ruling to allow Rohee to speak

By Abena Rockcliffe, February 27, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under News, Source

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) yesterday announced the party’s stance of rejection towards the ruling by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman that restored Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee’s right to address the house at any given time.

The Alliance for Change (AFC) issued a statement indicating that it fully respects the Speaker’s decision.

Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee

Rohee, last year, after the shooting death of three Lindeners during a protest, attracted a no confidence motion in the House. The motion was tabled by APNU Leader David Granger and, from the inception, gained support from the AFC.

After much debate, staged walkouts, premature adjournments of sittings, court action, and the matter being sent to a Privileges Committee, the Speaker finally gave his ruling last Friday, intended to put an end to the entire Rohee saga.

The Speaker’s ruling essentially stated that the continuation of a restraint on Rohee to speak, and to present Bills, Motions, and Questions, will constitute a “serious derogation” of his rights – both as a Member of the National Assembly and as a Minister of Government, hence he will be allowed to speak.

APNU, at a press conference held at the Office of the Opposition Leader yesterday, first criticized the way the Speaker’s “diktat” was handed down, saying that the “majority Opposition and the minority Government” weren’t given an opportunity to make their contributions on the issue, in a debate in the National Assembly.

APNU’s Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams went on to state that the actions of the Speaker, which he dubbed “unprecedented and undemocratic,” does not bode well for the future conduct of the “people’s business” in the National Assembly.

Williams opined that the Speaker imposed his ruling on the Members of the National Assembly through the media and television.

Just a few weeks back, Trotman had released a ruling on amendments proposed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall. The process through which that information was disseminated was similar to that of the way the most recent ruling was handed down.

No party had commented on the process then.

House Speaker, Raphael Trotman

Williams said yesterday that the “Speaker’s ruling was premature and pre-empted the imminent decision of the Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang, in the matter of AG –v- David Granger and Raphael Trotman CM No. 94 of 2012, and the Committee of Privileges, to which he had sent the matter.”

The attorney at law, on behalf of APNU, stated categorically that the Speaker is not above the Members of the National Assembly, who have been democratically elected by the people of Guyana.

“The Speaker is not a judge in the National Assembly, but, rather, sits as an umpire in the adversarial nature of the interaction between the Government and the Opposition.”

LEGAL SOUNDNESS AND FACTUAL INACCURACIES OF THE RULING
APNU pronounced yesterday that the Speaker’s “ruling can be impugned on its legal soundness and factual inaccuracies.”

Williams stated that Trotman arrived at his ruling that Rohee can speak in the National Assembly as both Minister and an elected Member of Parliament, on the “mistaken belief that Chief Justice Chang had so ruled, after invoking Article 171(1) of the Constitution, in the aforementioned Motion (See PP1 and 2 of the “Ruling&rdquo. On the contrary, the Learned Chief Justice Chang, at PP 24-25 of his judgement, had dilated on article 171(1) of the Constitution, in relation to Attorney General, Anil Nandlall’s, contention that it had to be read subject to article 106(6) to determine whether a member of Parliament could bring a No Confidence Motion against an individual Minister, the Constitution being silent on the matter.”

Further, the shadow Legal Affairs Minister said that “On the question of whether an individual Minister (like the Cabinet) must enjoy the confidence of the National Assembly to continue in office or be responsible to National Assembly, the Speaker said the Constitution is silent on this matter.”

However, Williams pointed out that the Chief Justice had stated “It will be a quantum leap to say that because the Constitution has adverted to the possibility of a successful no-confidence vote against the government and has provided for the resignation of the collective cabinet in that event, it is unconstitutional for a motion of no confidence against an individual member of Cabinet to be proposed in the National Assembly for debate…Therefore, the exercise of the power of a Member of the National Assembly to propose such a motion for debate is not Constitutionally prohibited or restricted.”

APNU’s Basil Williams

Williams said that the Speaker also fell into error by equating the position of Minister to that of the President; “ruling that because Guyana has a hybrid Executive Presidency/Westminister model Assembly, we cannot take the benefit of the concept of Individual Ministerial responsibility, but must nonetheless take the burden of allowing a Minister, in whom confidence has been lost, to speak, a feature of a strict Westminister model construct among others stated”.