The mother of all motions

Nov 25, 2012 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

The motion that was brought by Leader of the Opposition Brigadier David Granger before the National Assembly on 22nd November, most likely, will come to be regarded as the ‘mother of all motions’ in Guyana’s parliamentary history.
The motion, by any measure, has gone furthest to define the problematic relationship between the executive and legislative branches of the state and even, to some extent, the judicial branch, over the past two decades.  It will, in the final analysis, set the benchmark for the government’s relations with the National Assembly.
The motion, relying on the National Assembly’s Resolution No. 18 of 2012 which expressed ‘no-confidence’ in Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, called for him to be “prevented from speaking in the National Assembly so long as he is purporting to carry out the functions of Minister of Home Affairs.”
Despite its references to Rohee, the motion, did not actually personify the issue or deal with particular events or situations.  It dealt with the principles and process of parliamentary democracy in Guyana.
The motion is based on two fundamental doctrines. The first is the doctrine of the authority (or sovereignty) of the National Assembly and, the second, the doctrine of the accountability of members, particularly Ministers, to the National Assembly.
First, Parliament, not the Office of the President, is sovereign. Parliament has unfettered authority to ‘make, amend or abolish’ any law. No other institution in this Republic, including the Court, can ignore that legislation.  No Cabinet, no High Court, no Commission, no Party Central Committee is superior to the National Assembly.
Sovereignty is what imparts stability to the state. Sovereignty lies in the people’s elected representatives not in unelected judges, civil servants and officials. If incessant litigation in the Courts could paralyse Parliamentary legislation indefinitely and if parliamentarians could ignore Parliamentary sanction with impunity, there will be chaos in the country.
Second, Members of Parliament are accountable to Parliament, in the last resort.  This means that ‘representatives’ are required to answer those who are ‘represented’ on the performance of their duties. They must accept (at least some) responsibility for incompetence or failure.
Civil servants, nurses, soldiers and policemen cannot be made to account to the Parliament; a minister must speak for them.
Government ministers must understand, therefore, that although there is no written, legal contract, there is an unwritten ‘convention’ on ministerial responsibility. The imposition of discipline on ministers.
Further, the implementation of a code of behaviour depends upon the will of the President who is head of the Cabinet and who alone appoints ministers under the Constitution. It is the ‘convention,’ however, that individual ministers are deemed responsible to Parliament for the policies, the administration of their ministries and for their own personal conduct.
The convention of ministerial responsibility means, on the one hand, that ministers are required to answer oral and written questions, appear before select committees, introduce, explain and defend new legislation and speak in debates on matters affecting their ministries. These requirements reinforce the principle of the accountability of the Executive to the Legislature and, indirectly, to the electorate.
The convention of ministerial responsibility also implies, on the other hand, that a minister should resign if there have been serious administrative errors in his or her ministry or if the National Assembly expresses no-confidence in his or her behaviour or performance.
The Speaker, after listening to almost five hours of debate on 22nd November, last, and after referring to his research on authorities in Commonwealth countries with similar parliamentary systems, pronounced that he could find no reason not to have the National Assembly discuss the motion to prevent Rohee from speaking under the rule of ‘sub judice’, which prevents discussion of cases pending in the courts.
The Speaker cited instances where the British House of Commons found that its courts did not have the power to interfere in the internal workings of the Parliament. He emphasised that Parliament has to be allowed “unfettered control” of the management of its own business.
The Speaker ruled, therefore, that tabling the Opposition Leader’s motion was appropriate.
There is no doubt that the authority of the Speaker and of the National Assembly has been under siege since the People’s Progressive Party Civic found itself in an uncomfortable minority. The Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, thrice this year, brought challenges before the High Court against Leader of the Opposition Brigadier David Granger and Speaker Raphael Trotman with respect to actions they have been taking in the Assembly during the year.
Such high court challenges, clearly, threaten to strangle debate and paralyse action in the National Assembly as there seems to be no limit to the Attorney General’s imagination and his inventiveness in contriving these actions.
There seems also to be no limit to the amount of verbal abuse that the state media could spew on any given day. The National Assembly, for the past ten months since February 2012, has been the target of sustained vilification by some ministers and members of the Executive through the state-owned media – the National Communications Network (NCN), Government Information Agency (GINA) and the Guyana Chronicle newspaper that is published by Guyana National Newspapers Ltd (GNNL).
NCN has devised a new nightly programme – Inside Parliament –as a special, one-sided propaganda platform.
Opposition Members of the Assembly and the Speaker on some occasions have been described in scurrilous terms such as “irresponsible and reckless;” “vindictive and unprincipled;” “grossly unprincipled;” “power drunk” and “like addicts [who] seem to prefer ignominy.”
The Opposition has been accused of behaving like “a dictatorship of one,” as a “tyrannical majority of one” and of exercising “reckless and blatant opportunism.” The National Assembly was called a “sham and a veneer” and “an unruly horse.”
This loud, rude language on the part of some members of the Executive has done more than merely expose their low level of political culture and poor language skills. It also betrayed their fears, for the first time in twenty years, of being held accountable for the way they have been governing Guyana.
In the final analysis, the ‘mother of all motions’ sought to reassert the two fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy – parliamentary authority and ministerial accountability. That is what the ‘great debate’ achieved on 22nd November!

---

---