THE SPEAKER IS EXPECTED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

Feb 26, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Just one week ago, the Speaker of the National Assembly was being advised that he was expected to facilitate an agenda set by the majority with input from the minority. Or in other words, the Speaker should facilitate a situation in which the majority dominates and the minority participates.
This posture of partiality, it was argued, was justified because the opposition parties in the National Assembly were responsible for electing him as Speaker. Never mind, the fact that he was a compromise candidate after the original choices of both of the main opposition parties failed to get each other’s backing for their original nominees.
Last week, the Speaker was being urged to be partial towards the opposition because it was the opposition that put him there. It was argued that for the Speaker to be impartial was to abrogate the commitment of those who had given him their support.
This, of course, is not what is expected of a Speaker. When a Speaker is elected, those electing him should do so not because he is expected to side with them but because they feel that he is best suited to undertake the responsibilities of the office of Speaker.
That office demands that the Speaker be impartial and fair in his judgment. He is expected to facilitate the business of the entire House and not lean towards one or the other side. In presiding over the affairs of the House, the Speaker is expected to be objective and to be guided by the Standing Orders, laws and the Constitution.
The parliament is one of three arms of the State: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Our system of government is based on a separation of powers between these three arms. Thus motions passed in the legislature are not binding on the executive nor can they encroach on the independence of the judiciary.
This has always been the case. There have been many motions that have been passed in the history of the National Assembly, most with government support, that have not been implemented. And it is a fact that parliamentary motions, except for a motion of no confidence, are not binding on the Executive.
No argument can unseat this fact. Not even the attempt to claim that motions passed by the legislature represent the expressed will of the people.
Motions passed by the National Assembly represent the expressed will of the people’s representatives but because the legislature cannot assume the role of the executive, parliamentary motions demanding executive action can only be given effect if the executive so desires.
Even when it comes to legislation, the Constitution of Guyana recognizes that presidential assent is required before a Bill becomes law. Without the support of the executive no Bill can become law.
It is parliament that makes law, not the National Assembly. The National Assembly passes Bills. For these Bills to become law, the support of the second Member of Parliament needs to be had: the assent of the President.
It is for this reason that Bills passed by the National Assembly have to be passed through the Attorney General’s office for him to vet and determine whether he would recommend presidential assent. There is no automatic process whereby the President must assent to Bills.
The Constitution itself vests with the President the right of refusal of assent. When exercised, this triggers the return of the Bill to the National Assembly. And the reason is simple. For a Bill to become law both parts of parliament have to be involved: support of the House and assent by the President.
Refusal to assent is thus not the same as a veto even though it is often referred to as a veto power. It is not a veto because the Head of State is an integral part of the law-making process and there is reposed in him the option to assent or not to assent.
If he assents, the Bill becomes law; if he does not assent, he has to provide reasons within a specified time frame and the matter has to be returned to the National Assembly.
There still lingers, however, the misguided notion that parliament is supreme and therefore anything that parliament says or does is binding on the executive.
In the United Kingdom, parliament is supreme because there is no written constitution. As such even the courts cannot direct the parliament there.
However, most independent countries have subordinated the supremacy of parliament to a written constitution.
The Constitution of Guyana speaks to two forms of supremacy: the supreme law of the land and the supreme organs of democratic power. In the case of Guyana, the supreme organs of democratic power are the President, the Cabinet and the parliament. There is therefore no single supreme organ or arm of the State.
However, there is a supreme law and that law is the Constitution. The actions of parliament cannot violate the Constitution and if and when they do, redress can be had through the judiciary.
Parliament cannot ignore the adjudicatory role of the Courts. The courts are the guardians of the Constitution, the highest law of the land, and while the National Assembly enjoys sovereignty over its own internal affairs, this sovereignty is limited in that the National Assembly is bound to act in accordance with the Constitution.
The Constitution provides a member with the right to speak and to represent his constituents in the National Assembly. It is immaterial whether the person is a minister or not; once that person is elected to the National Assembly that person has an inherent right to speak. No presumed sovereignty can affect that right which is given by the supreme law of the land.

---

---