AZMO cannot be sent to the Privileges Committee for words and actions outside of and unrelated to the work of the National Assembly

Jan 30, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Words made within the hallowed halls of a legislature carry weight. These words can alter the course of governance. In Westminster systems this has always been understood: the floor of the House is a place apart. It is a locus of privilege and protection where members speak under rules designed to foster deliberation. But what of words uttered beyond that chamber’s portals? What of an accusation hurled in the public square— an unflattering allegation, for example, against the Speaker? Can such an allegation be sent to the Privileges Committee?

Westminster practice, in its long and often circuitous evolution, says: no—not on its own, not without more. To appreciate why requires a small journey through history, through jurisprudence and practice, and through the architecture of privilege itself. For privilege is not an endless sphere of policing; it is a carefully circumscribed instrument, devised to protect the integrity of parliamentary proceedings. It is not intended to serve as a shield for personal reputation in all places and at all times.

One of the earliest and most instructive touchstones is Stockdale v. Hansard (1839–1841) in the British courts. There, the question concerned the publication—under parliamentary authority—of libelous material. The House of Commons claimed that what was done in its name was protected by privilege. The court’s response was that many parliamentary acts enjoy protection, but that privilege did not immuniSe Parliament from the ordinary law where it went beyond the contours of parliamentary proceedings. In Lord Denman’s words, privilege must be bounded by law, not a vessel for unchecked authority.

The case did not involve any alleged disparaging statement about the Speaker, nor did it concern any commentary outside Westminster. But it underscored a fundamental point: privilege serves a function, not a personal ornament. Fast forward to modern practice in the House of Commons. The Commons’ Standing Orders and the rulings of successive Select Committees on Standards and Privileges make clear that what counts as a matter for privilege is conduct connected with the work of the House—obstruction of its business, failure to comply with its orders, interference with officers, or contemptuous behaviour within the chamber or in direct relation to its proceedings. A statement made in a broadcast or on social media does not automatically enter that domain.

So, this brings us back to the issue at hand: Can a statement by an MP, about the Speaker, made outside of the National Assembly and unrelated to the work of the National Assembly, trigger the Privileges Committee?

On the orthodox Westminster model, the answer is no, unless that accusation is brought into the chamber or it can be shown to constitute a contempt of Parliament by materially impeding the Speaker in the performance of parliamentary duties. Parliamentary privilege exists to protect the institution’s capacity to function, not to suppress political speech whenever it is intemperate. To involve the Privileges Committee each time a legislator’s rhetoric outside the chamber displeases a colleague or even the Speaker would be to turn the committee into a tribunal for political correctness rather than a body safeguarding the assembly’s procedural order.

Extra-parliamentary statements, however injurious to reputation, do not of themselves constitute a breach of privilege. Only when such statements are imported into parliamentary proceedings does the House have jurisdiction to act. A charge made within the chamber can be disorderly; the same charge outside, on its own, is political speech.

What, then, does properly belong to the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee? Not the rough-and-tumble of political speech in the public square, but conduct that strikes at the orderly functioning of the House itself. The Committee’s concern begins when a member’s behaviour inside the chamber descends into disorder—when language becomes unparliamentary, debate degenerates into insult, or the rules that govern proceedings are openly flouted. It is engaged when a member refuses to comply with the lawful orders of the House or its committees, treating parliamentary authority as optional rather than binding. The Committee is also summoned when the work of Parliament is actively impeded: when parliament is misled, or interfered. It intervenes, too, where there is a repeated or willful disregard for the rights of other members—conduct that denies colleagues their opportunity to speak, to question, or to participate fully in proceedings. Finally, its jurisdiction extends to acts of contempt in connection with the business of the House, where such conduct undermines the authority or dignity of Parliament itself.

In each of these categories, there is a clear nexus to the workings of Parliament. There is no such nexus when an MP makes an allegation outside the assembly; there the speaker of every charged phrase is not the Privileges Committee but the electorate, the press, and, in appropriate cases, the courts. To collapse this boundary is to invite a form of parliamentary omnipotence that Westminster history has striven to avoid. It is to turn Parliament into an arbiter of public speech whose proper guardian is, in fact, democracy itself. The Privileges Committee protects the House’s business. It does not censor the marketplace of ideas that surrounds it.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• AZMO, National Assembly, Peeping Tom, privileges committee, Speaker

---