Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Speaker

condemns Opposition’s in-house protest against President

 
Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland on Friday condemned the in-house protest action taken by members of the People’s Progressive Party /Civic (PPP/C) two weeks ago, while the President made his address at Parliament.
Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland

According to Scotland, the action required permission and that had not been requested, nor granted. As such, he reprimanded the party while asserting that the National Assembly was not a place for their course of action to express disapproval.

On November 2, Opposition Members of Parliament refused to listen to the address made by President David Granger in the House following the recommencement of Parliament after a two months recess.

During Granger’s speech about “the common good,” “patrimony,” “the economic sector,” “governance sector,” “social sector” and the “legislative agenda” for 2018, People’s Progressive Party members staged an in-house protest, holding up placards while heckling the Administration throughout the hour and half long address.

Opposition Parliamentarians bearing placards protesting, among other things, the President’s unilateral appointment of a GECOM Chairman from outside of the list of 18 provided by the Opposition Leader

Bearing signs which read “Uncontrollable crime,” “Blackouts murderous,” “Freedom of press under threat,” among others, the Opposition Parliamentarians chanted “no more rigging” and “jobs for youths!”

A major factor that led to the Opposition bearing placards in Parliament was the President’s recent decision to unilaterally appoint retired Justice James Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Election’s Commission, a moved dubbed by the Opposition as unconstitutional.

Commenting on why the Opposition members opted to stage an in-house protest and not a “walk out” as was their way of showing non-support of Government initiatives, Opposition leader Dr Bharat Jagdeo had asserted that “staying away was not adequate.”

“We had walked out in the past, not listened to the President, when there were other breaches of the Constitution… We stayed away from the Parliament, but this breach was so egregious that just staying away was not adequate. We had to be there actively protesting their breach of the Constitution [unilateral appointment of the new GECOM Chairman] and the rule of law and therefore that’s why we took this action to highlight not only to Guyana but the international community, how seriously we in the country view this matter,” he said. (Ramona Luthi)

Source: inewsguyana 

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Dr Barton Scotland maybe right in some instances with the house rules, but I watched most of the debates in parliament that leads me to believe that he is bias against the PPP. He is worse than Trotman I should say. He has no neutrality as speaker.

FM
Cobra posted:

Dr Barton Scotland maybe right in some instances with the house rules, but I watched most of the debates in parliament that leads me to believe that he is bias against the PPP. He is worse than Trotman I should say. He has no neutrality as speaker.

Granger didn't want a neutral Speaker. That's why he chose Scotland.

FM

Granger got his choice of speaker and unilaterally appoint justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM. Yet, he wants us to believe that his decisions were done with the best intentions and fairness. Yeh, right.

 

FM

According to Scotland, the action required permission and that had not been requested, nor granted. As such, he reprimanded the party while asserting that the National Assembly was not a place for their course of action to express disapproval.

Is this correct?

FM
ksazma posted:

According to Scotland, the action required permission and that had not been requested, nor granted. As such, he reprimanded the party while asserting that the National Assembly was not a place for their course of action to express disapproval.

Is this correct?

Could be. Perhaps Winifred Gaskin had requested and got the Speaker's permission to fling her panties at D'Aguiar's face. Which explains why Burnham was silent and Gaskin was not sanctioned. 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Gilbakka posted:
ksazma posted:

According to Scotland, the action required permission and that had not been requested, nor granted. As such, he reprimanded the party while asserting that the National Assembly was not a place for their course of action to express disapproval.

Is this correct?

Could be. Perhaps Winifred Gaskin had requested and got the Speaker's permission to fling her panties at D'Aguiar's face. Which explains why Burnham was silent and Gaskin was not sanctioned. 

You think Gaskin invented the commando movement? 

FM
ksazma posted:

According to Scotland, the action required permission and that had not been requested, nor granted. As such, he reprimanded the party while asserting that the National Assembly was not a place for their course of action to express disapproval.

Is this correct?

No, it is not and the Speaker is an ASS!!!

Nehru

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×