Based on my interpretation of Standing Order No. 8(2)…

- If a date was fixed at the last Sitting before the Parliamentary recess, only then Mr. Trotman could have fixed a date for the next Sitting ON October 14, 2014, I was asked by Speaker Trotman whether he has the power, in accordance with the Standing Orders, to convene the next Sitting of the National Assembly. I advised the Speaker that, in my opinion, the answer is ‘no’ and that he can only fix a date for a Sitting when the Assembly is adjourned to a specified date. Standing Order No. 8(2) is clear.

If a date was fixed at the last Sitting before the Parliamentary recess, only then Mr. Trotman could have fixed a date for the next Sitting.

Sherlock Isaacs

When matters are not provided for in our Rules, we refer to practice and precedents. The practice is that Sittings are requested by the Government. In the Parliament of Guyana we have two precedents, one involving Mr. Frank A. Narain, C.C.H., former Clerk of the National Assembly and the other involving Mr. Elwyn Viapree, former Clerk of the Legislature. In Mr. Viapree’s case, on 8th June, 1963, he was given the following instructions by Speaker Rahman B. Gajraj: –

“Mr. Clerk,
The business of the Legislative Assembly must proceed. It was because I was of the impression that several matters were ripe for putting before the Assembly that I wrote you on June 5th asking for the list. This reached me by my own messenger only at about 4.00 p.m., yesterday – too late for these instructions to be prepared before today, which is a Public Holiday. As a result, this will be sent to you on Monday morning, 10th June.

In accordance with S.O. 6(6) please give notice to Members in good standing (NOT those under suspension) that there will be a meeting of the Assembly on Wednesday, 12th June, 1963. Prepare Notice Paper and let it be delivered to Members (at least those in the urban area) by Monday afternoon.

Rahman B. Gajraj
Speaker”

Mr. Viapree referred the instruction of the Speaker to the then Attorney General, Mr. Fenton Ramsahoye for advice as follows: -

“Hon. A.G.,
I shall be grateful for your advice with reference to 1 and 3.

I do not share His Honour’s view that notice can be given to Members “that there will be a meeting of the Assembly on Wednesday, 12th June”.

I am of the opinion that this is a matter for the Government to decide, that is, the date and time of the next sitting.

E.V. Viapree
Clerk of the Legislature”

Mr. Fenton Ramsahoye, former Attorney General, gave the following advice to the Clerk of the Legislature:-

“Clerk of the Legislature,
Under S.O. 41(9) (to which however, there was no reference in the Assembly) the Speaker could suspend the Sitting for a time to be named by him; alternatively, he could adjourn the Assembly without question put, but in the latter case the adjournment, unlike the suspension, is an adjournment simplicitor and not for a time to be named by the Speaker.

2. Even, therefore, if it was competent for the Speaker to adjourn “to a date to be notified” (as he did) this formula did not vest him with the competence to notify the date, and the Clerk of the Legislature is under no duty to comply with the Speaker’s direction in that behalf. The competence in this matter resides where it normally rests, namely, with the Government of British Guiana.

Fenton Ramsahoye
Attorney General”

AMENDED SECTION
Thereafter, Mr. Viapree, Clerk of the Legislature, replied to the Speaker:-

“Your Honour,

I was concerned when I received your minutes at (3) and (3i) instructing me to notify Members that a Sitting of the Legislative Assembly will be held tomorrow Wednesday, 12th June.

As I did not share your view that this was possible under the Standing Orders, I sought the advice of the Hon. Attorney General which is respectfully submitted for your information, please.

In the circumstances, I regret that I find myself unable to comply with Your Honour’s instructions.

E.V. Viapree
Clerk of the Legislature”

The second precedent occurred in 1972. On the 12th May, 1972, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, Opposition Leader, wrote the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Derek Jagan, who was Acting Speaker in the absence of the Speaker, Mr. Sase Narine, who was out of the jurisdiction.

The following is a copy of Dr. Jagan’s letter to the acting Speaker:-
“12th May, 1972
Sir,
There is wide-spread and growing concern in Guyana about the flood situation, so much as that many knowledgeable people expect that there may be a food shortage as a result. There is little doubt that the flooding has already assumed the proportions of a national disaster, with many thousands of acres of crops of every kind completely lost, and irreplaceable for many months. There will be a further rise in prices when shortages begin to be felt.

In the circumstances, I feel that there should be a national effort towards overcoming the difficulties that have arisen, and that it would be in the best interest of the people for the National Assembly to discuss the situation.

In view of the fact that the Speaker is out of the country, I am requesting that you take steps to convene Parliament as early as possible.

Yours sincerely,
Cheddi Jagan”

The Deputy Speaker (Acting Speaker) thereafter, wrote the Clerk the following letter:-

“16th May, 1972
Dear Mr. Narain,
Further to our conservation yesterday on the telephone, enclosed please find the letter which was sent to me by Dr. Jagan, Leader of the Opposition, calling for a meeting of Parliament to discuss the flood situation. Since the receipt of this letter I have given this matter very serious consideration.

There seems to be no doubt that as a result of the flooding a number of persons have been affected and thousands of acres of crops have been destroyed. The Government itself has regarded the situation very serious and committees have been appointed to collect money, etc. and/or to distribute assistance to the affected persons.

In my view, it is in the public interest that Parliament should meet to discuss the matter which I think is of urgent public importance.
In the premises please summon a meeting of Parliament on Monday, 22nd May, 1972, at 2.00 p.m.

Yours sincerely,
D.C. Jagan”

The Clerk of the National Assembly thereafter, wrote the Deputy Speaker (Acting Speaker) the following letter:-

“18th May, 1972

Dear Mr. Jagan,
I hereby acknowledge receipt of you letter dated 16th May, 1972, in which you requested me to summon a meeting of Parliament for Monday, 22nd May, 1972, at 2.00 p.m.

I wish most respectfully to advise you of the provisions of the Standing Orders which deal with Sittings of the National Assembly. Paragraph (2) of the Standing Order No. 8 states as follows –

“If, during an adjournment of the Assembly, it is represented to the Speaker by the Government, or the Speaker is of the opinion, that the public interest requires that the Assembly should meet on a day earlier than that to which it stands adjourned, the speaker may give notice accordingly and the Assembly shall meet at the time stated in such notice. The Clerk shall as soon as possible inform each Member in writing, or if necessary by telegram of any such earlier meeting.”

From this Standing Order it will be seen that the extent of the Speaker’s power in the summoning of the National Assembly is limited, and although –
(i) It may be represented to the Speaker by the Government, or
(ii) The Speaker may be of the opinion that the Assembly should meet.

Nevertheless, the Speaker can give notice for the Assembly to meet only when the Assembly stands adjourned to a specified date and not when it is adjourned since die.

The Law Officers had confirmed the above interpretation of the Standing Orders and this was some time ago conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition by His Honour the Speaker.

When the Assembly last met on the 13th April, 1972, it was, on completion of its business, on a motion by the Minister of Housing and Reconstruction (Leader of the House), adjourned sine die and not to a specified date.

In view of the above, I respectfully advise that I am not of the opinion that you are empowered to give notice for the Assembly to meet on Monday, 22nd May, 1972.

Yours sincerely,
Frank Narain”

It should be noted that there has been no significant changes to S.O. 8(2) over the years. In view of the foregoing, I stand by my interpretation of S.O. 8(2). Mr. Frank Narain, C.C.H., former Clerk of the National Assembly, shares my opinion.

I also take this opportunity to state that Sir Michael Davies, Commonwealth Senior Parliamentary Staff Advisor to the National Assembly of Guyana, made the following statement in his 18th February, 2005 Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly:-
“Standing Orders are for Clerks, not for Members. One reason Clerks are employed is to provide advice to Members on the Standing Orders and on the procedure of an Assembly.”

In closing, I wish to quote from a Report dated July, 2013 by Mr. Frank Narain on this matter -
“… Did the National Assembly awake and take steps to simplify or clarify the procedures on this matter to avoid a further recurrence? I do not think that it did. A poor Clerk will continue to be involved.

A Speaker will continue to feel that he has the power to call Parliament, if he wants the Sitting.

The present Opposition will feel that with its one-member majority, it has the power.

Who really has the power under the Standing Orders?

Who is the poor Clerk to take instructions from?

Will Members have to run to the Chief Justice for his opinion?

M.P.s, please do not continue to involve and suffer my successor. Do something about this matter now. NOW! Something that will suit you if you become the Government and something that will also suit you if you become the Opposition. Is this not possible? Surely it is?

F.A. Narain, C.C.H.,

Former Clerk of the National Assembly”

Yours sincerely,

S.E. ISAACS
Clerk of the National Assembly