THE recent declaration by Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman that he is not bound by the ruling of Chief Justice Ian Chang shows his constant disregard for the constitution and rule of law.

On Friday last, Chief Justice Chang ruled that parliament could not legally or constitutionally deprive an elected Member of the National Assembly the right to speak or participate in any aspects of the work of parliament. Chang’s ruling also meant that Clement Rohee, in his capacity as the Home Affairs Minister who had faced a no confidence motion brought by the opposition, has the right to speak as an elected member of the House, regardless of his portfolio.
Since Chang’s ruling, both the Opposition and the government who initiated the court action have been claiming victory while offering different interpretations of the ruling. This has lead to fresh questions about the role of the Courts in either ordering or nullifying decisions of the parliament once they are found to have breached the Constitution of Guyana.
Trotman questioned the court’s jurisdiction and powers with respect to intervening in matters that concern the parliament.
“The vexed issue of jurisdiction appears not to have been settled and in my opinion was avoided,” Trotman commented.
He stated that he “will be instructing the lawyers representing the Speaker of the National Assembly to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal to seek further clarification only on the issue of the powers and authority of the High Court, vis a vis the National Assembly.”
The Opposition had used its one-seat majority to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly. The gag order itself is a violation of the Constitution and standing orders of Parliament but Trotman collaborated with the opposition to make it effective.
Trotman, an AFC Executive, enjoyed the support of his party, and APNU, for the Speakership of the Assembly which the PPP/C Administration contended violated Parliamentary norms and practices.
The Opposition launched its vendetta campaign against the Minister of Home Affairs after the Linden protest on July 18. The Opposition action has since stalled the forward movement of the Firearms Amendment Bill which seeks to curb Firearms trafficking.
Since Trotman’s pronouncements, several legal luminaries are questioning his decision to appeal the Chief Justice’s ruling which they said was in bad taste.