PARLIAMENT is to be reconvened shortly and, according to the AFC, the motion of No-Confidence is to be discussed as a matter of priority. Moses Nagamootoo, who tabled the motion, has made the request that this matter be dealt with dispatch – taking precedence over all other matters pending debate in the National Assembly. I must say this is a very bold move on the part of the minority AFC. Interestingly so is the fact that Nagamootoo is making that request to a Speaker who is locked in a court case for rape and buggery of a minor in the High Court.
So, my first question to Nagamootoo is, who gave him the bright idea that he “controls” anything in the National Assembly that he should dictate what goes on there?
On the second count, who told him that a No-Confidence motion is priority? I would further add that Nagamootoo should be well-advised that the court matter involving the Speaker takes precedence over any matter in this noble house. That is priority; not what they think. It must be made pellucid that no sensible government (and that is the PPP/C not the AFC) would proceed with a Speaker embroiled in a very serious paedophile matter; it just won’t happen. I think what the PPP/C is doing right now is giving Speaker Trotman time to vacate gracefully. They are giving him enough time to go home and work out his moral compass while there is time. It is the ethical and morally upright thing to do in such a highly-charged atmosphere.
So, simply put, I don’t think the PPP/C is the least bit interested in Nagamootoo and Ramjattan’s idle threat of a No-Confidence motion. What the party should do is table a motion for the immediate removal of the Speaker. And should they posit that there will be a constitutional crisis, there would be no such thing because there is a Deputy Speaker in the house who is ready and able to carry on.
Even if the sexual molestation issue is settled out of court, Trotman still cannot hold office. A “settlement” means that the accused party has decided to drop the ignominy of being found guilty in a court of law in a case which, in most cases, mandates a jail term. He might well opt for the less painful and less embarrassing route of public scrutiny. Therefore, the best option available is to resign.
Let me refer you to the situation in the United States with the Miami Lakes Mayor Michael Pizzi, who had to step aside while his matter was decided in court. As the court record shows, he was acquitted of the charge and is seeking reinstatement. In fact the latest news report states that he cannot hold office again. The same goes for Trotman. He must vacate his post. He cannot convince anyone with any valid reasons why a person should hold such a high position while damaging allegations are levelled against him.

E. ADAMS