Speaker defends disallowing motion presented by Opposition Leader

The disallowance of the PNCR’s motion in Parliament last Thursday did not meet the criteria for matters of urgent public business, according to the Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran.   

The motion moved by Opposition Leader Robert Corbin sought to have adjourned the business of the National Assembly to discuss the motion which he felt was urgent on the basis of sworn testimony being given in a New York Court by Selwyn Vaughn, a witness under protection of the U.S. Government in the Roger Khan drug case there.

Mr. Ramkarran, in disallowing the motion expressed his disagreement with Mr. Corbin’s position that the issues raised in the motion are urgent, citing two international sources to support his decision, a British constitutional theorist Thomas Erskine May, contented that the matter raised by the motion must not be offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available.

The Speaker said what was striking about the motion was that the matters outlined relate to incidents in Guyana and accusations which consist of newspaper reports of evidence which took place in a Court of Law in the United States in a pending matter.

“That is what we are dealing with here; newspaper reports in Guyana of evidence given in a matter which is pending in a Court in the United States of America. That attracted my attention…,” he stated.

Pointing to the grounds for disallowance of the adjournment motion, and citing the Indian Parliament, the Speaker pointed out that the matters sought to be raised is mostly based on press reports without being substantiated.

The US Government has already indicated to the Guyanese authorities that they could not provide conclusive evidence on the matter until the case was completed.

The PNCR leader, in outlining the basis for his motion, stated that this testimony provided essential information about the assassination of journalist and activist, Ronald Waddell and the murder of 200 Guyanese by a phantom squad.

Ramkarran further informed him that the  only matter that is urgent are the facts and circumstances stated by a witness in a Court in the United States of America in a pending trial, the issues of which are reported in the newspapers here.

He noted that in the past, applications had been made by way of motions to adjourn the business of the Assembly under this Standing Order, and he has since written a number of opinions on these matters so as to form a record.  

“I have also said before that the rules relating to adjournment motions have long been felt to be very harsh; and many legislators in Parliament have adopted modified rules in order to deal with these types of matters, and that thinking went to the adoption of a modified rule for our own National Assembly … it allows for a debate on an urgent matter after only three days notice, with certain other rules attached to it,” Ramkarran observed.

Again citing Erskine May on urgency, Ramkarran said, “The fact that a grievance is continuing is not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence. The fact that new information has been received regarding matter that has been continuing for some time does not itself make that matter one of urgency.  If the facts have only been recently revealed, that does not make the occurrence urgent and that does not make the occurrence recent.”

“Having regard for all of these statements for which authorities are cited, I appreciate what you are saying; but regrettably I do not agree with you,” the Speaker told the opposition leader.

“On those grounds I don’t need to go further; on those grounds I am afraid I am unable to entertain the motion and I wish to add that all official documents to me form part of the record of this House,” he added.

Ramkarran added that the Standing Order states that the Speaker has to be first satisfied to approve the motion, adding that when that happens, leave of the Assembly is sought, or in another scenario, there is no need for leave of the Assembly, once the Speaker grants that, and therefore there is no need for a majority vote of the House.

Further appealing for his motion to be considered, Corbin stated that the matters raised ought to be heard in the Parliament, but the Speaker pointed out to him that the matters can be aired in the House, but on another type of motion, subject to his review.

He added that in such cases, the Speaker puts the motion forward and it can be voted down by the majority; but if the opposition agrees then the motion can be heard.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.