One would have thought that the Honourable Speaker’s ruling,

that restored the rights and privileges of the Minister of Home Affairs  to speak in his constitutional  capacity as a Member of the National Assembly, and further as a Cabinet Minister, would have been graciously accepted by both Parliamentary Opposition parties.
As it is at the moment, the Alliance For Change (AFC) has had a change of heart, and has announced its acceptance. This leaves the A Party For National Unity(APNU), that has announced not only its rejection of the decision, but is also seeking a “House debate”, as reported in a section of the media.
It was expected that this coalition would have presented further  nebulous reasons for its rejection of  the Speaker’s decision, so as to continue their constitutionally questionable action of preventing the elected People’s Representative from speaking on their behalf, and from performing his executive functions as a cabinet minister. For a party that has at its disposal many experienced and competent legal minds, it is difficult to understand why it refused to accept the Speaker’s initial  advice, followed by the  Chief Justice’s ruling, and once again, another from the Honourable chair.
APNU’s call for a “House debate” is without any merit, or cause, and rings hollow; for there is nothing further to consider where the Speaker’s edict is concerned. It is interesting to note that at an APNU press conference, its shadow Legal Affairs spokesperson and the Deputy Speaker, described the Speaker’s manner in announcing his decision as “This unprecedented and undemocratic step in imposing his ruling on the Members of the National Assembly through the media and television without giving them a hearing in the National Assembly does not bode well for the future conduct of the people’s business in the National Assembly”. This is barefacedly said, as it is starkly contradictory to what has been the sum total of opposition conduct and strategy  in the Tenth Parliament.
What could have been more “unprecedented” than this party, in concubinage with the AFC, not accepting the  original Speaker’s ruling, and even that of the Court? And what has been more “undemocratic” than, again, its jointly taken decision with its parliamentary ally,  to deny Minister Rohee his voice in the House, when clearly there were no legal or constitutional ground for so doing? This was clearly a classical case of political diktat.
The reality is that this is a party that has sadly abused the one seat majority in combination with its parliamentary ally, the AFC. Surely, the latter seems to have finally seen the light of day, but with its much senior partner still seemingly bent on its undemocratic crusade.
To be precise, all that the Honourable Speaker has done is to make final an earlier decision he had made. In doing this, he has risen above partisanship, restored the dignity to his office, and restored the democratic traditions of the Assembly.