PANIC IN THE OPPOSITION CAMP

Oct 26, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The Opposition is in a quandary over the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Panic seems to be stepping in and this has led to an intensification of calls for the Minister of Home Affairs to resign.
The Opposition fails to see the absurdity of its position. Firstly, the Commission of Inquiry has not yet concluded its work. In fact it is still taking evidence. As such, it is premature for anyone to be arriving at a decision on the possible direction that the Inquiry is taking, even though the Commission is at a critical stage. The Opposition, therefore, should not be panicking as if its case is about to fall apart.
Yet this is precisely what it seems the Opposition is doing. It was the Opposition that called for a Commission of Inquiry. But instead of awaiting the outcome of this inquiry to determine whether the police was responsible for the fatal shooting of the three protestors, the Opposition seems to have decided, at least judging from its actions that it has to find a scapegoat for these killings, thus it is pressing for the dismissal of the Minister of Home Affairs.
Long before the COI commenced, the Opposition had determined that the Minister of Home Affairs had to be held responsible for the shootings. When it was pointed out that the Minister cannot be held responsible for the shootings since he was not part of the police operation, the opposition began to argue that the actions at Linden represented a failure of policy and the Minister therefore had to be held accountable for this failure.
In fact, in contradiction to their demand for the Commission of Inquiry, they even passed a motion calling on the Minister to resign. Now this is clearly a precipitous motion and one that prejudges the Commission of Inquiry.
So on the one hand, the Opposition wanted a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain what happened and who should be held responsible, but on the other hand they have already decided who should resign.
The problem that they face is what happens if the Commission finds that either the police did fire the shots that killed the three men on July 18 or if it is found that the evidence is inconclusive on who exactly fired the fatal shots. What happens if it is found that the police cannot be indicted? How then will the Opposition defend its motion that it passed in Parliament?
It has decided the police were responsible for the shooting and it passed a motion demanding that the Minister be held responsible. What happens if the police are found not to have fired the shots? It would mean that the motion was based on a false premise. This is why the opposition should have waited until the conclusion of the COI before passing any motion.
The Opposition parties are panicking. They are afraid of the wrath of the people. They are afraid that the people will turn against them and therefore they are eager, over eager in fact, to sink the Minister. This is why they are pressing their case now, by issuing ultimatums to the President, as to when the Minister of Home Affairs should resign.
What is even more shocking is that they passed a motion of no confidence. It is not for this column to pronounce on the constitutionality of the demands made in that motion. A higher authority will rule on that in due course.
However, a motion of no confidence cannot be passed against a Minister, because by the principle of collective responsibility, this would mean that the entire government would have to resign, since all ministers swim or sink together. A motion of no confidence against a minister is tantamount to a motion of no confidence against the government which is clearly, therefore, not permissible.
The Opposition may have recognized the implications of this vote of no confidence. As such, there has been a suggestion that the motion was a motion of censure. Now this is a different kettle of fish from a motion of no confidence. A censure motion cannot call for the removal of a Minister. So the Opposition is causing itself to be in a tangled mass.
On the one hand it cannot call for a motion of no confidence in a Minister, because there is collective responsibility of Ministers within a government and therefore a motion of no confidence against a government means that parliament has to be prorogued and elections called.
On the other hand, a censure motion can only express regret, condemnation, surprise, disappointment or indignation against the action of a member, but cannot call for resignation or removal.
But in its panic, the Opposition is snatching at any defence to hold the Minister responsible.

Latest News

PANIC IN THE OPPOSITION CAMP

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Olympic Kremlin crowned Horse-of-the-Year at One Guyana Thoroughbred...

Guyana Squash Association celebrates historic...

Western Tigers will be 50 this year ‘2025’

UG Honours outstanding athletes at Annual Sports...

East Bank Pool Club set to Cue Off 2025...

Guyana Police Force Senior Officers defeat...

Features/Columnists

The government is in choppy waters

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Half price electricity by half year

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

PANIC IN THE OPPOSITION CAMP

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]