The speaker’s ruling is unacceptably undemocratic

Aug 03, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

An ugly flaw of people with state power that has endured over the centuries is they simply cannot understand that life is beyond the control of any human. If you birth a law to have presidential relatives receive a colossal pension because you wanted your two cousins to have the money, way down the line another president will use the treasury to finance ten cousins.
You do not make an edict because at that particular moment it suits your purpose. Anyone who wants to understand how complicated is politics should immediately read the Shakespearean drama playing out in Malaysia. What took place in Malaysia two months ago does not happen in real life but is happening and it is going on right now.
If you do not like the PPP, then you still should not accept the unacceptable ruling of the Speaker of the House in relation to a PPP Member of Parliament. Such an edict can come back to haunt the party you support. The Speaker wants the MP to face a disciplinary hearing from an action that is at the heart of justice and liberty and fair play. The Opposition should not abide by the Speaker’s ruling because it is anathema to the right to free speech.
I am willing to learn but I know of no case at the moment in any nation where a legislator writes the newspaper to complain that the Speaker is not being impartial and has to face an investigation committee because of that. There are too many dimensions of this situation that is pregnant with danger.
The Speaker presides over Parliament, which is inherently about the affairs of the nation. However, at all times the Speaker must remember that he is administering a place where the representatives have been chosen by the population to speak on their behalf. At no time, outside of criminal behaviour, repugnant immoral conduct, libelous deliveries, the people’s representatives must be hindered in their national role as protective of the citizenry. If they are, then that is an assault on democracy.
It is the natural right of a House member to address the people of his/her country through the media. Such a pathway is common in perhaps all countries in the world. If a Parliamentarian holds the perspective that the Speaker is biased and wants to address his constituency about this problem then why he/she doesn’t have the right to use the media to do so?
The Speaker’s response to the MP’s letter in the press raises serious questions about how he sees the rights of Parliamentarians. The Speaker advised that any queries of his decisions should first be raised with him. Nevertheless, isn’t that antithetical with natural rights?
Should it not be left to the discretion of the MP to decide whether he/she wants to have a dialogue with the Speaker or simply go directly to the Guyanese people? The Speaker can argue about lack of decorum, meaning the proper thing to do as to approach him, but there is nothing in violation of law or morality if the MP wants to go to the press.
The operative words here are ‘libelous” and “lying.” If in the letter, the MP libels the Speaker or speaks despairingly of him by citing fictional situations then a motion can be brought to the House and even then we are on shaky grounds because libel is not determined by Parliament but in a court room. In such a situation, a libel writ may be the wiser course of action for the Speaker.
It is clear to any schoolboy, that the Speaker has authority to stop a member from speaking, have the member removed or suspend the member. We are going in unchartered waters when the Speaker of the National Assembly can stop a Parliamentarian from writing a letter of complaint against him in the newspapers.
If this country accepts that then what we have agreed to is a further curtailment of rights and freedoms in a country where such precious values have been in short supply since Independence in 1966.
Have we reached the stage in Guyana where an elected Parliamentarian can complain in the newspaper about the President, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whip, etc but not the Speaker? This is an inherently undemocratic society so if the Opposition loses this particular round, I would suggest they resort to the Granger method.
President Granger in defending Minister Bulkan, observed that Ministers have the right to express their opinion in a private capacity. So the MP can write again and this time sign his name as a citizen of Guyana.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News