Govt protests Speaker’s controversial ruling

 – as Rohee’s gag motion is sent to Privileges Committee

By Michael Younge

A ruling by the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman on Thursday was met with widespread protest from government’s Members of Parliament as they described it as both “controversial” and “strange”.
“I am going to make a ruling which may not favour on any one side of the House,” Trotman emphasised in the lead up to his controversial judgement.

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall

Trotman ruled that the motion brought by Opposition Leader David Granger to Parliament and aimed at debarring Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee from speaking was admissible and properly laid before the House. He also ruled that the minister would be “temporarily” debarred from bringing any legislation and bills to Parliament as “they would not be entertained” until a permanent decision is taken on the controversial matters arising from the motion.
Trotman also opined that the committee is expected to meet before the end of December to start work and bring closure to the matters before it. He disagreed with government’s arguments that the motion should not be heard as it was sub judice.
“Having a motion or writ filed cannot and should not stop the National Assembly from discussing a matter… but if it goes on to try to make a ruling that the court is also asked to make, then that is wrong.”

More controversy
More controversy was sparked when the Speaker also made a decision to send Granger’s motion to the Committee of Privileges of the National Assembly “for determination” at that level. This means the committee would be tasked with the responsibility of holding hearings and adjudicating on the requisite issues before it in relation to the motion. It is interesting to note too that this committee is chaired by the Speaker of the National Assembly, who does not have the power to cast a vote. The Privileges Committee also has more opposition representatives than the government.
“Pending that report… I rule that we will not proceed with the second reading of the Firearm Amendment Bill,” Trotman announced.

APNU MP
Basil Williams

Seeking to further justify his ruling, Trotman said that while Rohee does have the right to free speech, Parliament has the right to regulate its members based on preconceived statutes and procedures.
“This House has its own rights and regulations and procedures as well and so the question is whether the House has any authority to regulate the conduct of its own members, and… I am satisfied that the House does have this authority,” he said.
He, however, declared soon after that “the motion is properly before the House in the name of the brigadier, but I do have misgivings about the due process aspect.”
After four hours of debates, sporadic moments of unparliamentarily behaviours and loud as well as lewd heckling throughout the sitting, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds informed the Speaker that the ruling party merely “respected” the ruling, but had severe concerns about aspects of his judgement.
Hinds said that the Speaker’s ruling has “in effect given operation” to the content of the opposition’s motion, even though it was sent to the Privileges Committee.
Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall speaking to Guyana Times in the parliamentary corridors, reinforced government’s position even in light of the Speaker’s judgement.
“The motion deals with a matter that is currently pending in the court and there is a Standing Order that currently precludes Parliament from debating any motion that in substance, that is the subject of legal proceedings,” he stated, noting that “If the motion is passed, it will have the impact of denying Mr Rohee his freedom to speak, a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Nandlall argued staunchly that the National Assembly is a creature of the Constitution, and therefore cannot act, and has no power to act beyond and ultra-vireos of the Constitution, pointing out that everything it does must be subject to the Constitution, which in itself, guarantees every citizen, including Minister Rohee, the right to speak freely.

Rohee has committed no offence
The AG’s comments were vindicated by the Speaker, who made several admissions throughout his quest to dispense judgement.

APNU MP Basil Williams

“At the same time, I have a duty to protect the majority and minority, and so I believe, notwithstanding what has been decided on in previous cases… a member who comes up for sanction… has a right to be heard… I don’t share the view that his address from the floor equates to a right to be heard at the state of sanction,” Trotman admitted.
“More fundamentally is the fact, that Rohee has committed no fault, no offense… a Parliament, like any tribunal, has the power to exercise discipline over its members, but the member must have committed a wrong, or behaved in a particular manner which constitutes an offence, or an affront to the rules of that body,” the AG said cautiously.
Nandlall belaboured the point that Rohee has done nothing in the Parliament that warrants a transfer of the matter to the Privileges Committee, stating clearly that there is still much ambiguity or lack of knowledge about the offence for which the opposition is seeking to impose a sanction on him.
“And so the motion is here, but where do you get the power from… you still have to get the power from the three sources: the Constitution, the Standing Orders or the laws of the country, because the power doesn’t manufacture itself,” he reasoned.
Nandlall added:  “He has essentially gagged Rohee from speaking by virtue of his ruling where he is saying that until the matter is determined by the Privileges Committee that Minister Rohee cannot bring any bills or legislation in his own name… lots of things is wrong with this ruling.
“You are committing a man to the Privileges Committee and he has not committed an offense because up to now, we don’t know what is the offense… which privilege has he violated and you have imposed a sanction on him before a hearing.
“Your expectation that your ruling would be controversial has been fulfilled,” Opposition Leader David Granger, who appeared to be disturbed by the Speaker’s ruling said, despite the fact that his APNU MP Basil Williams announced moments before “that the APNU has accepted” the ruling.
Granger was merely attempting to find out whether he will get to debate the motion and achieve the resolutions which it was calling on Parliament to adopt. The Alliance For Change (AFC) has also found favour with the Speaker’s ruling, even though it is a temporary one.