“I did not have sex with that woman”

Mar 01, 2013 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

This was the statement that landed President Bill Clinton in boiling water. These were the words that made people the world over laugh at him and get mad with him. Mr. Clinton was simply talking nonsense. But more importantly, he was trying to deceive the world. For those who don’t know what this was all about, it was Mr. Clinton’s interpretation of fellatio as non-sexual contact. He was defining sex in the most amateurish way when he denied that the “blow job” Monica Lewinsky gave him constituted sex. To a majority of Americans and to the rest of the world it was sexual contact, it was oral sex or it was sex. Mr. Clinton was simply not being frank and honest.
Years after this silly position of Mr. Clinton, we have a more than atrocious explanation from the current Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. When three protestors were shot during the Linden electricity hike protest last July, Mr. Rohee was accused by anti-government critics and opposition leaders of oral contact with the police during the conflagration. He denied it and he gave two explanations why this could not have happened.
First, he said he just cannot go into a police office and use their communication system.
Secondly, even if he could have done that, he said the distance between Linden and Georgetown does not allow for radio set communication. Such asininity cannot be and should not be excused by Rohee’s political bosses and the nation of Guyana. It is not true that the police sets do not have a 90-mile range. They do.
I stood right next to Commander Hicken in Linden on July 18, 2011, the first day of protest against the electricity hike and heard him talking to Georgetown on his radio set.
Most abominably, Rohee knew that cell phone signals can travel the world over. Rohee’s Cabinet career should have come to an end when it was factually discovered that Rohee spoke from Georgetown to a senior police commander in Linden using a cell phone, after the shooting. Months after this disastrous descent into political depravity, the National Assembly passed a motion of no-confidence in Rohee.
Enter the AFC and Speaker Raphael Trotman. Trotman has announced that Mr. Rohee would be allowed to participate in the business of the Parliament as an elected Member. I will refrain from critical comment on that decision.
My question to Mr. Trotman is what becomes of the legitimate no-confidence motion? It is my understanding that if Rohee can speak and introduce Bills, then the no-confidence falls.
The AFC has announced that it will abide by the Speaker’s ruling on Rohee. What the Speaker and the AFC have to explain to the Guyanese people is if Rohee returns to full-fledged status as a Parliamentarian, then what becomes of the no-confidence edict passed by Parliament.
The two are in contradiction. If Rohee is allowed to conduct business in the House and refuses to resign and the President refuses to change his Cabinet portfolio then the no-confidence ruling literally is inapplicable or has no useful purpose.
I can think of a cricket analogy. The ICC says that a bowler is chucking and therefore is banned until an investigation. Country A then picks him to play a test match against Country B because it says that it does not think he is chucking. Both countries A and B are part of the ICC, but agree to play the test match. Once they do so, then the ban is effectively removed. The AFC is in a ticklish position and it will be interesting to see how they explain it.
The AFC says it will adhere to the Speaker’s removal on the ban on Rohee and will choose when to cooperate or not with Rohee (source: KN item – Feb.27, page 14)
But does the AFC have a choice? My contention is that it has not got one. Under the rubric of the no-confidence motion, Rohee is morally obliged to resign and the President is ethically bound to honour the wishes of Parliament and assign him another ministry or remove him from Parliament.
If Rohee and the President reject the no-confidence vote that the AFC helped pilot in the House, then how can the AFC choose on which occasion to cooperate with Rohee. Moral laws and respect for the tradition of the Parliament would dictate to the AFC that it has to refuse cooperation on every occasion with Rohee.
I am asking the Speaker and the AFC to declare what is the present status of the no-confidence motion.

Latest News

“I did not have sex with that woman”

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Clarendon College too good for Dolphin as Annai Sec’ holds Speyside...

Glasgow excited for MLS journey with Chicago Fire

Matthews slams unbeaten 85 as Windies Women...

No room to breathe as five more teams to advance...

Sammy to be appointed as West Indies Senior...

Bangladesh hold nerve to defend 148 and take 1-0...

Features/Columnists

The stakes are high in Guyana’s democracy

Let the asylum seekers go: a first step for Venezuela to rebuild relations in the Americas

Cash grant-he last stop

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

“I did not have sex with that woman”

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

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 […]