The Speaker’s ruling cannot be faulted

Nov 08, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In 2016, then Opposition Member of Parliament, Mr. Komal Chand wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly for the adjournment of the National Assembly in order to debate a matter of definite, urgent and public importance. The matter which the PPPC Member of Parliament wanted debated was the imminent closure of the Wales Estate by the APNU+AFC government.

The then Speaker was satisfied that even though the notice was received on the same day of the Sitting of the National Assembly, it did satisfy the requirements of notice being properly given.  The Speaker further explained that: “A motion to adjourn the House on a matter of this nature is an extraordinary procedure and the Standing Order which guides the Speaker in this instance sets out three indispensable elements for consideration. The matter must be definite, it must be urgent and it must be of public importance.”

He went on to explain that there is no doubt that the motion proposed was of public importance. There is no doubt also, he ruled, that it was definite. But he did not agree that it was urgent. He related that the Member who had proposed the motion had expressed a willingness to enter into talks on the matter and then Leader of the Opposition has expressed a similar wish to talk with the government. It was also observed that the closure of the estate was proposed for the end of the years. These facts led the Speaker to conclude that the requirement of urgency was not fulfilled. As such he concluded that the motion failed to meet on the three criteria for wider debate and as such was disallowed.

It was not the first time and it was certainly not going to be the last time that attempts by the Opposition to have an adjournment of the Assembly in order to debate a matter of definite, urgent and of public importance. Indeed, if a record of such notices were done, it may very well reveal that many such applications for adjournment of the National Assembly were disallowed on the basis that they did not meet the criterion of urgency. There were also many cases in which such motions were allowed.

Indeed, in 2007, there was an incident involving the dislocation of vendors from the Staborek Market. The then Leader of the Opposition moved to have the matter considered as a definite matter of urgent and public importance. The then Speaker concurred that the business of the Assembly could be adjourned to consider the motion. The litmus test of when a matter can be considered ‘urgent’ was explained in the Indian Parliament in 1950. There the Speaker ruled that: “The crucial test always is as to whether the question proposed to be raised has arisen suddenly and created an emergent situation of such a character that there is prima facie case of urgency and the House must therefore leave aside all other business and take up the consideration of the urgent matter at the appointed hour. The urgency must be of such a character that the matter really brooks no delay and should be discussed on the same day the notice has been given.”

A Speaker of Guyana’s National Assembly had explained the meaning of urgency. He said, “The matter must be a clear emergency. It must have arisen suddenly in a manner of an emergency and should not have arisen over a series of weeks.” He went on to quote Erskine May as follows: “The matter must not be a grievance that is continuing which does not qualify as a sufficient matter of urgent public importance.”

There have been cases in which the Order of Business was adjourned to consider a matter of definite, urgent and public importance. One such case was in relation to unstable electricity supply. On the other hand, an application to suspend the business of the Assembly to consider the proposed takeover of the bauxite industry in Linden was denied presumably on the ground that it did not meet the criteria of being urgent. In 2008 following floods in the country, the then Leader of the Opposition proposed the adjournment of the National Assembly to debate the flooding. The matter was deemed one of urgent and of public importance and was allowed.

There has always been discontent whenever a Speaker disallows a motion for the adjournment of the business of the National Assembly. But each application has to be considered on its merit as to whether it meets the three “indispensable criteria.” There are a number of rulings which can guide the Members in determining whether their motions qualify as matters of definite and urgent public importance. Once these are referred to it would be clearer that in most instances the Speaker’s rulings cannot be faulted.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not this newspaper.)      

---

---