Speaker violates impartiality of chair
-as he backpedals on his own ruling
SPEAKER of the House, Raphael Trotman, responding to his own inherent sense of right and wrong and the legal genes imbibed and imparted to him from infancy, stunned the House when, in response to a paper submitted by APNU’s Carl Greenidge, he rejected Greenidge’s objections to the passage of Financial Paper No 9 of 2011. In effect, the Speaker agreed with the contention of Guyana’s Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs as it relates to the separation of powers between the Executive arm and the Legislative arm of government by issuing a written ruling that overruled Greenidge’s attempts to block the supplementary Financial Paper No 9 of 2011, which had been scheduled for re-consideration by the National Assembly. This financial paper was returned to the House last Thursday when the Speaker ruled that the National Assembly had transcended its constitutional powers which  provided only for disapproving or approving budgets or financial papers set before it by the Finance Minister, who, during this Parliament is Dr. Ashni Singh.
The National Assembly, according to that ruling by the Speaker, was not vested with the powers to reduce estimates or supplementals presented by the Finance Minister and, by inference that the joint opposition had arrogated the Finance Minister’s portfolio to themselves.
The Speaker highlighted the roles and the separation of powers and functions between the Executive, which he said must remain clear, in that the executive has the responsibility to look after the nation’s finances and to bring to Parliament certain financial papers, which the Parliament can only approve or disapprove, not reduce.
In effect, their actions as they relate to the cuts they imposed on the national budget were unconstitutional, which is the AG’s contention that is currently seeking the Court’s attention.

Trotman succumbs to verbal onslaught of opposition MPs and backpedals on ruling
This pronouncement by the Speaker caused an uproar in the opposition benches, in and out of the Assembly chambers. Raphael Trotman was vilified for this ruling by his colleagues who descended to the most despicable behaviour and harangued the Speaker in the basest terms, for hours afterwards – in the corridors of Parliament and in the dining area, to the extent where his entire family was vilified as being mental incompetents, a trait that they castigated him for inheriting.
Shockingly, those present allege that Trotman succumbed to this verbal onslaught and backpedalled on his ruling, claiming “computer glitches” to be responsible for his initial pronouncement, then in complete violation of the impartiality incumbent upon him in his role of Speaker of the National Assembly, while sitting in that august chair, he assumed the role as AFC leader and reversed his original ruling, to the effect that Parliament was vested with the powers to approve, disapprove and reduce estimates.
The AG had moved to the High Court to have the approximate $21 billion cuts to the 2012 national budget by the parliamentary opposition judicially reviewed on the premise that …”the right to seek judicial redress against any perceived legal wrong or constitutional impropriety is one that is deeply rooted and cherished in our jurisprudence and legal system. The rule of law which ensures that all are equal in the eyes of the law and therefore, are subject to the legal process, are all fundamental pillars upon which the edifice of our legal system rests. They apply to the ordinary citizen of this land, the Executive Government and the National Assembly, alike. Therefore, if there is any violation of the law or the Constitution, any one aggrieved must have unhindered access to our courts for redress.
It is in this context that the Executive’s recourse to legal proceedings must be viewed.
“The Executive Government’s simple contention is that the National Assembly has acted beyond, ultra vires, and in breach of the Constitution, has usurped the functions of the Executive and has violated the doctrine of separation of powers upon which our Constitution is constructed, and it is seeking legal redress which it is constitutionally and democratically entitled to do. It is our view that the National Assembly, like every other creature of the Constitution, must act and function in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution. In this instance, it is our considered view that it has not.”