BREACH OF PRIVILEGES AND CONTEMPT

Apr 07, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Two incidents last week highlighted once again why there are customary rules and sanctions relating to breach of privileges and contempt in the National Assembly.
In the first instance, a controversy erupted over heckling remarks made by the Hon. Minister of Education. These remarks were overheard by the Speaker and initially deemed to be inappropriate. This led to the Speaker demanding that an apology be made to the offended party. When this apology was not offered, the Speaker threatened to not recognize the Minister when her turn came to speak during the Budget debate. This ruling was subsequently overturned by the Speaker after reviewing video footage of the remarks. It was ruled that the remarks did not impugn the reputation of the member who protested the remarks.
This decision was much to the dissatisfaction of the main opposition grouping in the National Assembly. They then took matters into their own hands and decided to disrupt the Minister when her turn came to speak. They did this by drowning out the Minister when she attempted to speak.  Despite the best efforts of the Speaker to bring order to the House, he was unsuccessful. As a result, the sitting had to be adjourned.
This is not the first time that this sort of ruckus was made in the National Assembly. And it is not the first time that the Speaker has tried in vain to bring order to the proceedings.
Perhaps those making the noises to drown out the speech of the Minister were not cognizant that they could face sanctions for their actions. But any act or acts aimed at disrupting the work of the National Assembly and of preventing a member from speaking constitutes an offence of contempt and in most cases a breach of privilege which are punishable offences.
It is left to be seen if the Speaker can identify just which persons on the opposition benches were guilty of disrupting the proceedings of the Assembly, preventing an elected member from speaking and generally refusing to comply with the instructions from the Chair. It is left to be seen whether there will be mass disciplinary action taken against the opposition. Video footage should be available to determine just who were involved in impeding the Minister from fulfilling her obligation to address the Assembly and just who defied the call for order.
Both of these incidents indicate why there are privileges and immunities for parliament and why there is an offence of contempt of parliament
Privileges of the National Assembly are rights and immunities that are seen as necessary for the proper and effective functioning of the parliament. These rights are usually provided for in the Constitution and in ordinary legislation.
The Constitution of Guyana outlines the privileges of members of the National Assembly. These privileges are in the form of immunities. The first immunity is that a member of the National Assembly cannot be sued for words spoken to the National Assembly or in committee of in a report, Motions, Bills, Resolutions or otherwise.
During last week, there was reportedly a threat by one member from the opposition to take civil action against the Minister for the words she made which led the controversy. In a strict sense this is not possible because as mentioned above, the Minister enjoys immunity from such action.
But it was suggested that since the Minister was not on her feet when she made the remarks, she was not officially addressing the Assembly that thus this constituted the private words of the Minister and thereby not subject to protection.
The Constitution of course does not make such distinction between private and official words spoken in the National Assembly. Indeed, the very notion of having privileges are aimed at curtailing acts targeted at preventing a member from participating in the work of the Assembly.  As such, it is hardly likely that any court would entertain a civil complaint for words spoken or mumbled in the National Assembly.
This first privilege enjoyed by our parliamentarians relates to the right to speak, to freedom of speech within the Assembly. It is considered the most fundamental of all privileges because if a member is constrained or prevented from speaking and speaking without threat of legal suit, then it will affect the proper function of the National Assembly because that member is constrained in freely representing his or her constituents.
The second privilege enjoyed by members of the National Assembly is immunity from arrest for a civil debt. This does not mean that members cannot be brought before the Courts in their private capacity for civil debts; only that they cannot be arrested. There is a sound reason for such a provision. This is to ensure that the member cannot be unduly denied the right to attend parliament through actions such as legal suits for civil debts.
The third immunity is that no summons may be served on a member during sittings of the National Assembly. This is intended to preserve the dignity and authority of the National Assembly by not bringing it into disrepute and disrespect during sittings through the service of Court summons. It is also intended to avoid a situation whereby the Executive can, through the use of legal devices, keep a member away from the Assembly during its sittings.
In general, the purposes of parliamentary privileges are to:
1)    Allow for the unimpeded performance of members
2)    Protect its members’ reputations and character from being impugned.
3)    Uphold the dignity and authority of the Assembly.
A breach of privilege of the National Assembly can be said to occur if a member is obstructed or prevented from speaking or otherwise participating in the work of the National Assembly, including through desk thumping, civil suit or physical obstruction. A breach of privilege can also be said to occur if the reputation and character of any member, including the Speaker, are impugned by anything said within and outside of the Assembly.
Contempt of parliament may or may not involve a breach of privilege. Any act that offends the dignity and authority of the House, including refusing to accede to a decision of the Speaker, can be cited as contempt. But it need not be a breach of privilege. When years ago a PPP parliamentarian pelted the then Speaker with a paper weight, that amounted to contempt. And of course Cheddi Jagan was never allowed in his final years as a member of the National Assembly from speaking because he refused to apologize for throwing down the Mace, the symbol of parliament’s authority.
The ruckus that was created in parliament last week was both a breach of privilege and an act of contempt. The ruckus prevented the Minister from speaking, a right that is afforded protection by the privileges afforded to members of the House. And in not acceding to the Speaker’s call for order, those who were disobeyed were guilty of contempt. They can be sanctioned by the Chair for the latter.
Will they?

---

---