Speaker ends the Rohee gag saga… Rules that the Minister can speak

Feb 23, 2013 News

---

By Abena Rockcliffe
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, yesterday announced that Clement Rohee is no longer barred from speaking in the National Assembly.
Rohee last year, after the shooting to death of three Lindeners during a protest, attracted a no confidence motion in the House. This matter eventually became one that was taken up in the courts.
But before that, Trotman had ruled that Rohee was banned pending the outcome of a meeting of the Privileges Committee.
Trotman ruled that the motion was properly before the House after intense debate on its admissibility. In the interim he ruled that no motion or Bill in the Minister’s name would be entertained until the matter was concluded before the Committee.
The court then ruled that the ban on Rohee was unconstitutional. Trotman acceded and agreed that Rohee could speak as a member of parliament but not as Minister. This was further modified since the Standing Orders allows for any Minister to speak on topical matters without notice.
Now Rohee will enjoy full participation in the House.
In his more than 6,000 words ruling, Trotman stated that he arrived at his decision after consideration of the Guyana Constitution, the preliminary ruling by Chief Justice Ian Chang on the Rohee gag, the Parliamentary Standing Orders and the advice and practice of legal and parliamentary practitioners locally and abroad.
“It is my considered opinion that refusing the right to a Minister to address the House is tantamount to refusing the President the right to speak in the House; a very unconstitutional and untenable situation.
“The National Assembly can refuse to listen, but it cannot restrict the right of the President to speak, or that of his representatives, to speak and to fully participate in the business of the National Assembly,” said Trotman.
The No Confidence motion basically called for Rohee to resign as Minister. But Trotman stated yesterday that his research found that, for the most part, there are three general reasons why Ministers should resign. He said that a vote of no confidence is not one. \
Trotman listed the “common” reasons as “When they make a personal error such as commit either a private indiscretion or political misjudgment; When the Minister cannot support a government policy and when the Minister is clearly directly responsible for a major error, and when found out, misleads the House.”
After citing countless advices, consultations, and examination of similar situations, Trotman stated that it is his considered opinion that his previous decision to prevent the Minister from speaking, pending the final hearing and determination of the Constitutional Motion, could lead to a manifest injustice.
“As for the future, it is my clear and unambiguous intention to recognize the right of the Hon. Minister Clement J. Rohee, M.P. to fully participate in the business of the National Assembly; without inhibition, restriction, or reservation. It is the constitutionally correct position to adopt.”
He said that the Motion being in the Committee of Privileges, it shall remain there until Members of the Committee indicate their desire to re-commence consideration of the issues.
Trotman stated, “It is apparent to me that I must uphold the Constitution of Guyana in interpreting this issue. The exercise of my duty should not be interfered with, or fettered, by the Courts, or be determined by the outcome of the issue before the Courts; though we are both respectful of, and grateful for, opinions and interpretations provided by the High Court from time to time.  Nonetheless, the National Assembly is legally, and intellectually, empowered and capable, to work out its own procedures and settle its own issues.
“With that said; I firmly believe that in its efforts to enforce its rights, the National Assembly cannot, except as provided for in the Constitution, and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, derogate from the rights of any individual Member of Parliament; irrespective of what the opinion of the other Members is of that individual Member. The continuation of a restraint by the Speaker, on the Hon. Minister Clement J. Rohee, M.P. to speak, and to present Bills, Motions, and Questions, will constitute a serious derogation of his rights – both as a Member of this august House, and as a Minister of Government.
“I believe that the correct course of action to take would be to allow the Hon. Minister Clement Rohee, M.P. the right to participate fully and unhindered in the business of the National Assembly both in his own right as an elected Member of Parliament, and as the individual designated by His Excellency the President to be the Minister of Home Affairs.
“Henceforth, I would be recognizing in Hon. Clement J. Rohee, the full and privileged rights guaranteed under the Constitution to a Member of the National Assembly, and to that of a Minister of the Cabinet.”

---

---