Commentary

0
49

What somehow appeared to be a low-keyed news item in the issue of Stabroek News of Friday November 16, 2012, has caused me to delve a little on the question of whether the traditional protocol was observed in the visit to this country of two parliamentary consultants. Basic questions arise because certain factors did not appear in the dubious release and these are:

1. Who initiated the move to have the consultants’ inquiry into parliamentary committees?
2. Who were the stakeholders that were briefed (names will be instructive)?
3. The release of the study were being presented to whom?
4. Dr Clive Thomas, who is not a parliamentarian, appeared to be a principal stakeholder. What was his role?

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a reputable entity that has participated in many spheres before in Guyana. I am advised that the protocol observed in such instances invariably originate within the Office of the Speaker – either the Speaker him/herself or on instruction, the Clerk.
Was this the case associated with the visit?
The current dispensation appears to have ushered complexities into the society to a high degree of dangerous waywardness. I trust that this parliamentary intervention is free from any untoward prompting.
Were the consultants brought up to date on the unholy phenomenon of the election of the Deputy Speaker and the composition of certain parliamentary committees and the current ill-advised pursuit of hounding down the Minister of Home Affairs?
Those questions are needed to be put to the consultants if only to seek an official declaration of setting the record straight.