Speaker orders clerk to convene sitting
October 28, 2014 By
… but prefers old agenda to take precedence
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman has asked the Clerk, Sherlock Isaacs to fix a sitting of the National Assembly for November 6. This date, he said, will provide for the normal notice period for Members of Parliament (MPs) to be notified and for arrangements to be made for all to be present.
Trotman’s request of the Clerk comes in wake of Isaacs himself strongly objecting to arguments that the Speaker can convene Parliament when a date was not fixed at the last sitting. He had cited two previous attempts by former Speakers to have this done, which was strenuously objected to by the Clerks. It is not clear whether the Clerk has responded to Trotman or has recanted his earlier position.
The Alliance For Change (AFC) has been urging the swift reconvening of Parliament particularly to deal with the No-Confidence Motion it tabled last August against the Government. However, Trotman is proposing that the House should proceed with the matters that were on the agenda and if need be, add new ones.
The Speaker has gone ahead in writing the leaders of the three sides in the House informing them of his advice and interpretation of the Standing Order that deals with the reconvening of Parliament and also his instructions to the Clerk to fix the next sitting.
In his letter to Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Leader of Government’s Business; Opposition Leader David Granger and AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan, Trotman recalled that at the last meeting of the Parliamentary Management Committee on Wednesday, October 15, the issue of the date for the resumption of sittings of the National Assembly came up, and it was unanimously agreed that the Government and Opposition Chief Whips would continue in their efforts to agree on a date.
Intractable
Clerk of the National Assembly,
Sherlock Isaacs
He said recent communication with the Whips, and pronouncements in the media attributed to both, clearly lend to the view that the positions are intractable and that the likelihood of a date been agreed upon soon is unlikely. “There is gridlock, and we are faced with the untenable and unhealthy situation of the National Assembly not meeting since July 10, 2014. I am sure that you will agree with me that this cannot be allowed to continue any longer as there is no state of national emergency or otherwise that prevents the Assembly from not meeting. In fact, on the contrary, I make bold to say that there are myriad issues of national import that require our immediate attention.”
Trotman said in his letter that notwithstanding the process in which the Whips were involved, “I chose to engage the Clerk and former Speakers of the National Assembly with a view to enquiring how best we can have the sittings resumed. I have received opinions from Mr Sherlock E Isaacs, and Messrs Sase Narine, OR, SC, and Ralph Ramkarran, SC. In the case of Isaacs, he is of the opinion that Standing Order 8 (2) does not authorise the Speaker to call a sitting where there is no fixed date for the next sitting; recall that on July 10, 2014, the House was adjourned to “a date to be fixed”. Mr Isaacs’ opinion is in consonance with two previous opinions rendered on the very Standing Order, and I am, in fact, in complete agreement with him in so far as Standing Order 8 (2) is concerned.”
Automatic resumption
However, Trotman said that this cannot mean that the National Assembly cannot be convened unless by agreement; especially where such agreement appears elusive or even impossible. “In this regard, I have found favour with the opinion rendered by the former Speakers of the National Assembly, which in effect states that the National Assembly shall meet “day by day”; unless otherwise decided by the National Assembly, and that as the Assembly automatically went into recess on August 10, 2014, so too did it automatically come out of recess on October 10, 2014. Therefore, the House should have been convened forthwith on the first working day thereafter.
“This opinion, in fact, supports one that I rendered in a Ruling, No 4 of 2012, in which it was stated: “Once the President issues a Proclamation to summon Parliament under the powers of Article 69 of the Constitution, the presumption is that the National Assembly will sit every day (except Saturdays and Sundays) after the day of its first sitting. However, a Minister may move a motion for resolution by the Assembly that the “next day” not be the day immediately following.
“I am firmly of the belief that when in fact on July 10, 2014, the House adjourned to a “date to be fixed” this was done in error, and for that I take full responsibility as an open-ended adjournment is, in my opinion, tantamount to a violation of the constitutional mandate for the National Assembly to meet day by day. In any event, I am also of the opinion that the adjournment to “a date to be fixed” was superseded by the event of the House entering into the annual recess on August 10, 2014. The next day on which the House should have met should have been Monday, October 13, 2014 as October 12, 2014, was a Sunday. No direction from the Government or the Speaker is required to reconvene the sittings in this regard. Indeed, to support this view, Committee meetings have resumed without an instruction or direction having to be given.”
Trotman said in the circumstances, therefore, “I wish to inform you that I have written to the Clerk of the National Assembly requesting him to fix a sitting of the National Assembly for Thursday, November 6, 2014….”
In terms of the Order Paper for the sitting, he said it is his view that the Agenda as of July 10, 2014 is the “agenda we should resume with; together with any additional matters that have arisen during the recess, and subject, of course, to the requisite period of notice being observed. I trust that this course of action will find favour with all.”
