Unless the Speaker of the House, Mr Raphael Trotman, is committed to recurringly and publicly embarrassing

himself, then he needs to take some quality time out for quiet reflection on his continuing inconsistencies and contradictions while occupying the Speaker’s chair.
The people of Guyana are fully aware of the circumstances of his choice as Speaker of the 65-member National Assembly, when the two opposition parties, APNU and AFC, misused their one-vote majority to have both the Speaker (he, as former leader of the AFC) and Deputy Speaker  (APNU’s Deborah Backer).
That was an unprecedented development, compared with even the worse of political times under the long undemocratic rule of the PNC. What, however, has brought out the worst of attitudes and rulings by Mr Trotman, as Speaker, involves his political antics and inconsistencies that have enabled his political comrades in the AFC and APNU to have their way in making a mish-mash of not just the reputation of Parliament.
His rulings were to also embolden the APNU/AFC parliamentarians in their contempt for High Court rulings a concerted political campaign to deny Home Affairs Minister, Mr Clement Rohee, his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak as a democratically elected parliamentarian of the majority party, the PPP/C.
Having pledged to respect the Court’s ruling on Rohee’s right as an ELECTED parliamentarian to speak in the National Assembly, he has also committed himself to seeking “clarification” on aspects of acting Chief Justice, Mr  Ian Chang’s ruling. Fair enough.
The Attorney-General, Mr Anil Nandlall, quickly welcomed this declaration by the Speaker, and let it be publicly known that he, as principal legal adviser to the government, stood ready to also become involved in such an appeal. Then, in the weeks that followed, silence and inaction became the norm.
Suddenly, and surprisingly—the latter coming as a breath of much-needed fresh political air—Speaker Trotman chose last Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly to allow Minister Rohee his right to speak.
But as the minister was doing so, the combined APNU/AFC opposition chose to demonstrate their public disagreement by staging a dramatic protest walk-out. This was a familiar feature of the PNC before it made of rigged elections a political virtue in governance under its leadership.
Apparently surprised by the walkout, Speaker Trotman was ready the following day, Friday, with another of his flip-flop moods. Now he was saying that any further speaking in Parliament by Minister Rohee would be “on a case-by-case basis” until the controversy is finally over.
“Controversy” — that of the Opposition’s making?  The very opposition alliance  yet to produce EVIDENCE, instead of emotional rantings, against Mr Rohee?
And what would  be the guiding principles for Mr Speaker to arbitrarily determine when Minister Rohee is extended his RIGHT to speak in Parliament? 
What, for instance, would be the case when the minister — who has NOT been found guilty of ANY wrongdoing by the APNU/AFC coalition in their childish, hate-driven campaign — to make a statement on informing the nation about initiatives by the Guyana Police Force that  contrast with the known unwholesome politicisation of the GPF under a then  Police Commissioner who is now an APNU parliamentarian and ‘security adviser’?
What would be Speaker Trotman’s precedent for his proposed “case-by-case” decision on Rohee’s right to speak? Whatever happened to the latest “legal advice” he said he had sought in relation to the Chief Justice’s ruling on Minister Rohee’s right to speak in Parliament? Did the “advice” suggest abandoning such an appeal?
Come, Mr Speaker! In the interest of your own self-respect, integrity, preservation of established norms of parliamentary governance, and, of course, Guyana’s best interest, why not end the prevailing political charade surrounding the functioning of the House of Assembly where an opportunistic APNU/AFC coalition is also increasingly revealing its own contradictions?