Latest update May 26th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- Pres. Ali defends foreign firms ‘flipping’ mining claims despite Guyana getting nothing from deals
- ‘Normalise with Israel or deal with Iran dies’ – Trump threatens Arab world
- Family says teen acted in self-defense in Corentyne fatal stabbing
- U.S. military launches new strikes on Iran
- Woman on the run after miner killed at Bamboo Landing
THE MACE
Kaieteur News – The range of nonsense that is peddled in Guyana and which is believed by many is truly astonishing. The latest is the claim that because the ceremonial Mace may not have been in place during the vote for the passage of the National Resource Fund Act, it means that the Act was not properly passed.
The Mace is a symbol. It is used for ceremonial purposes. It is absolutely absurd for anyone to hold that a condition for any laws to be passed is for the Mace to be in place. This is baloney!
The Mace is not a requirement for the passing of legislation. The majority of votes of the persons present and voting are all that is required for the passage of legislation.
The Mace is merely symbolic. It has greater symbolic importance just prior to and after the election of a Speaker because it is symbolic of the authority of the Speaker.
According to the Rules of Procedure, Practice and Convention of the National Assembly, the Mace is a symbol of the powers and privilege of the Assembly and is borne before the Speaker when entering and leaving the Chamber, and upon state occasions by the Sergeant-at-Arms and is placed on the Table when the Assembly is in session. The presence of the Mace is merely a sign that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is in the Chair.
To seek to remove the Mace is considered an act of dissent or disrespect. But it does not nullify anything which is taking place or has taken place in the National Assembly. During a BREXIT debate in the House of Commons, one MP picked up the Mace. He was immediately removed from the House and later suspended.
To say that without the Mace, no act of the National Assembly is valid is incredulous. It is like saying that unless the Presidential standard is present, anything that the Head of State decrees is not valid. It is as absurd as saying that 34 is the majority of 65.
Guyana is a parliamentary democracy. The requirement for the passing of laws is not reliant on the presence or absence of the Mace, even though by convention, it is expected to be present during Sittings. But a motion or question is determined by the majority votes of the elected representatives present and voting.
This is the exact provision which is mandated by Article 168 (1) of the Constitution. It states: “Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.”
The Standing Orders of the National Assembly are the rules which guide its deliberations. The Standing Orders make no mention of the need for the Mace. None whatsoever!
Guyanese therefore must disabuse themselves of this nonsense that the presence of the Mace is necessary for the proceedings of the Assembly to be valid. It should be observed that when the Speaker sits in Committee, the Mace is not in its usual place but that does not render null and void the proceedings of the Committee.
And when the Speaker is elected for the first time, the Mace is under the table since it is merely symbolic of the authority of the Speaker and since one is being elected, it cannot symbolically be placed in its usual place.
Once the Speaker has pronounced that a Bill has been passed, this confers legitimacy on the legislation until assented. Those therefore, who feel that there can be successful challenge to the recent passage of the National Resource Fund Act are wasting their time. The Courts have long held that parliament controls its own affairs.
This position is in conformity with the Article 165(1) of the Constitution which provides that the National Assembly may regulate its own procedure and may make rules for that purpose.
Unless the intended litigants can establish that the legislation in question is unconstitutional, they stand little chance of success. And to claim that the legislation conflicts with the Constitution would infer that it was properly passed.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
