Reasons why Brig. David Granger and Khemraj Ramjattan’s motion should be debated in the National Assembly

Mar 19, 2013 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
This is not a procedural issue.  All procedural requirements have been satisfied. This is a matter of substance.
Attorney General Nandlall asked this question of the High Court – “Whether the National Assembly can prohibit Minister of Home Affairs Clement James Rohee MP, from speaking and/or not recognizing Minister of Home Affairs, Clement James Rohee MP, for the purposes of presenting any bills, motions or making other presentations to the House.”
Attorney General Nandlall omitted any reference whatsoever to the Resolution of No Confidence in Minister Clement James Rohee as Minister of Home Affairs by the majority of the National Assembly, upon which the extant motion was proceeding.
Since this has nothing to do with wrong procedure but substantive issues of the right of a Minister to speak in the National Assembly after no confidence has been expressed in him as a Minister, or to bring motions, present bills, or petitions in that capacity, it is not a decision for the Speaker but for the Assembly.  This is democracy.  Rule by majority.
The Privy Council in the Rediffusion (H.K) Ltd. –v- A.G. of H.K. [1970] held that the passing of a motion in the National Assembly is not of itself unlawful.
This is a question of Mr. David Granger and Khemraj Ramjattan’s right to move any motion in the National Assembly under Article 171(1).
This is a question of the right of the National Assembly to debate any matter brought before it, after confirming with the Standing Orders.
The Chief Justice has ruled in Action 94-CM of 2012 A.G. –v- David Granger and Khemraj Ramjattan, that questions of law and the Constitution are for the Court, not the Speaker.
The Speaker’s jurisdiction is the Standing Orders. They are silent and do not speak to the substantive issues of whether a Minister or indeed a MP has a right to speak in the National Assembly.
The Court has been induced to act pre-emptively, before the Motion was debated.  What if the motion was not successful?
Can the Court determine what issues must or must not be debated in the National Assembly before they are debated?  I shudder for democracy and for the separation of Powers and the independence of the National Assembly if that were so.
Can the Speaker for that matter tell the representatives of the people within the National Assembly, what issues they may or may not bring?  Can the Speaker tell political parties in the Assembly what their parliamentary agenda must contain?
The Court was asked whether Minister Rohee could speak or bring motions, present bills, or petitions in that capacity, not whether MP Rohee could.
The Learned Chief Justice said no; and went on to say he had a right to do so as MP (ORBITER DICTA)
Since Mr. Speaker had indicated what your ruling would be, before the Learned Chief Justice’s final decision in Action 94-CM supra, and which conflict with the latter, these questions arise: –
(1)    Will the Speaker ignore the Chief Justice’s ruling to Attorney General Nandlall’s question, that MP Rohee has no right to speak as Minister?
(2)    Will the Speaker ignore the Chief Justice’s ruling that matters of law and the Constitution are for determination by the Courts, not the Speaker?
A further question arises: is the right to debate an issue of substance (not procedure) in the National Assembly only for a governmental majority, and not an opposition majority?
Mr. Speaker we must be reminded that our Parliament/National Assembly is not of a strict Westminister model.  We have an Executive President who is voted for and who is also Head of State and an arm of the Parliament. Our system of voting is by proportional representation.
We have a minority government and a majority opposition, in the Parliament.  Our Parliament is not supreme but the Constitution is, and the former derives its powers from the latter. We are not a Colonial legislature but an Independent Republican Parliament.
Mr. Speaker I contend that we are in a similar position to that of our Court of Appeal when it was established as our final Court.  That Court was no longer bound by precedents of the House of Lords, the Privy Council or by the law of any other country.  All of those laws insofar as they were not received into our law by legislation, were persuasive authority only.
Mutatis Mutandis (in like manner) our Parliament/National Assembly from 1980 at least was no longer bound by the Rules of practice and procedure of the House of Commons which became persuasive only i.e. guidelines.
As in the case of the Court of Appeal, our Parliament/National Assembly is enjoined to create its own precedents based on our own peculiar Constitutional Parliament/National Assembly arrangements.
Mr. Speaker I urge you, Let the Debate begin!
Basil Williams, MP

---

---