THE conduct of the National Assembly of the Tenth Parliament of Guyana thus far is indeed unique in many respects. This novelty obviously has its genesis in the composition of the National Assembly, where, for the first time in the parliamentary history of Guyana, the Opposition enjoys a majority. Those who heralded this unprecedented parliamentary matrix “as the new dispensation”, and likened it to the panacea of all of Guyana’s problems must, by now, be thoroughly disappointed.

ONE-SEAT MAJORITY: A POLITICAL WEAPON
This one-seat majority is yet to be used constructively and effectively to increase the oversight capability of the opposition in the public’s interest, as indeed it should.
Instead, apparently inspired by the emotion of revenge, it has been used as a political weapon of vendetta against the Government, notwithstanding the vicious and tragic consequences which eventually trickle down unto the unsuspecting citizenry.
The almost boorish majoritarian alliance which was used to wrest from the government benches both the speakership and deputy speakership, in violation of all the norms and traditions not only in Guyana but in parliamentary practice throughout the British Commonwealth, has already been the subject of wide critical commentary.
The like strategy, employed to exert domination in and control over the committee system of the Parliament, including the Parliamentary Management Committee, an organ which always had parity of government and opposition membership even when the PPP/C enjoyed a majority, and whose membership was the subject of a Standing Order which expressly mandates equal membership for the Government and the Opposition, is the subject of ongoing litigation.

We saw the draconian use of this majority to reduce the national estimates presented by the Minister of Finance by some $20 billion, with the devastating consequences of jeopardizing hundreds of jobs in the public sector, and slashing several programmes designed to benefit the lives of the ordinary working people of our country, in particular the poor and the vulnerable.  This is also the subject of legal proceedings.
Upon these issues I shall not dwell. Instead, I will comment upon the nature of the business of the National Assembly as it conducts its sittings.

STERILE MOTIONS
In recent times, we have witnessed an avalanche of motions laid in the National Assembly by the Opposition. Some were debated and passed, using the one-seat majority despite strenuous, reasoned and even legal objections by the Government.  Some are still pending, awaiting debate.  In this series of articles, I will examine, inter alia, these motions with the view of demonstrating that they are either unnecessary or violative of the Constitution or some specific legislation, and therefore constitute a colossal abuse and misuse of the process of the National Assembly and waste of taxpayers’ money and parliamentary time.

A convenient point to commence is perhaps to examine the nature, purport and object of a motion in the context of the National Assembly.
According to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 20th edition p. 289, “A substantive motion is a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House.”
Since a motion has no binding effect, it simply offers an occasion for discussion.  The Opposition has used the vehicle of the motion to traverse the path of spewing political rhetoric and propaganda, while achieving absolutely nothing of value for their constituents.
Instead, it is costing the country millions of dollars in expenses to have these motions debated for hours and over several days.
The impotence of a motion in the National Assembly is aptly summed up by a Manual of the House of Commons of Canada titled “Private Members’ Business: a Practical Guide” at page 5, which states “… in agreeing to a motion, expressing a resolution, the House is only stating an opinion, the government is not bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action” as a consequence thereof.
It behoves me to make it excruciatingly clear that it is not the policy of this Government to ignore motions passed by the National Assembly.  Indeed, it would be an ideal if we can support every motion initiated by the Opposition, and implement all the resolutions emanating therefrom. Unfortunately, because almost each of these motions either violate the Constitution or some legislation, or is otiose and unnecessary, we have been unable to support any.

THE SPEAKER
The Speaker constitutionally presides over the National Assembly. The responsibility, therefore, resides with him to ensure that the National Assembly, at all times, conducts itself within the confines of the constitution, the law and the Standing Orders; and that it acts intra vires its powers, authority, functions and jurisdiction.  The National Assembly cannot purport to legitimize by votes that which is illegitimate, unconstitutional and ultra vires. I have highlighted this phenomenon to the Speaker and have respectfully reminded him of his role and functions in relation thereto.  I will continue to do so with the assistance of legal and other authorities when necessary.  The responsibility, however, exclusively remains his.
In the succeeding articles, I will endeavour to identify the flaws in some of the aforementioned motions, and rationalize the Government’s non-support.