The People Progressive Party/Civic says it continues to view with deep concern the increasing disregard that the Parliamentary Opposition and the Speaker continue to display for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. “The latest manifestation of this undemocratic behaviour is illustrated by their refusal to recognize and respect the clear pronouncements of the Honourable Chief Justice Ian Chang, SC (ag) in the case filed by the Attorney-General in relation to Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee.”
According to a PPP/C release: “Article 171 (1) of the Constitution clearly confers a right upon every member of the National Assembly to introduce any Bill or propose any Motion for debate in the National Assembly. Article 9 of the Constitution provides “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives.”
“The Chief Justice ruled that a combination of these Constitutional provisions confer an undoubted right upon every elected member of the National Assembly to speak on any matter in the National Assembly. In his own words, the Learned Chief Justice at page 27 – “it is the view of this court that Mr. Rohee’s right to speak in the National Assembly derives from his office as a member of the National Assembly and not from his office as an executive Minister. Thus, his right as an elected member of the National Assembly must be concomitant with his constitutional duty to speak for and to represent his electors in the National Assembly who, in turn, have a concomitant right to be so represented.”
The PPP/C pointed out that as regards the No Confidence Motion passed by the Opposition in the Parliament, “the Learned Chief Justice ruled at page 23 to 24 of the Judgment that “the issue in this matter is not at all whether the National Assembly has confidence in Mr. Rohee as Minister of Home Affairs but rather is whether the Speaker has acted (and may further act) unconstitutionally or illegally in prohibiting him from speaking or making presentations in the National Assembly for reason of that expression of no confidence. Assuming for the purpose of analysis that Mr. Rohee was not an executive Minister but was the holder of a seat in the National Assembly (like all Opposition members of the National Assembly), would his office of Minister render him more vulnerable to a prohibition against speaking than those members of the National Assembly who had no such Ministerial office? It is indeed difficult to see how such a question can be answered in the affirmative. It is indeed 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 that Assembly on account of the absence of confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly in that person qua an executive Minister when he sits in the Assembly not qua Minister of the Government but qua member of the National Assembly.”
“And at page 32, the Chief Justice stated “it behooves the Speaker and indeed the National Assembly as a whole to respect not only the finding of the court for reason of its finality but also the constitutional right of Mr. Rohee to represent his electors and their constitutional right to be represented by him in the National Assembly.”
According to the Freedom House release: “Despite these clear and unambiguous pronouncements of the Court, both the Joint Opposition and the Speaker of the National Assembly have, thus far, from their public utterances, indicated that they are unprepared to permit Minister Rohee to speak in the National Assembly. Indeed and in defiance of the Court’s pronouncement, the Speaker has remitted the matter to be dealt with by the Privileges Committee. This we regard as a clear abdication by the Speaker of his responsibilities and as simply a conspiratorial mechanism to eventually gag Minister Rohee, permanently, from speaking.
“So not only do we witness the National Assembly and the Speaker violating the Constitution but also we see their contempt for clear pronouncements emanating from the Judiciary. This situation gives the Guyanese public and indeed the world an eerie insight of what is to be expected if the opposition are ever to hold the reins of Government in this country.”
This release indicates a major showdown between the Speaker and the government which could lead to further Parliamentary impasse.
