…if he doesn’t apologise to Speaker, House

THE Speaker of the National Assembly can sanction PPP MP Anil Nandlall for showing contempt for his ruling during last Friday night’s debate on the President’s Speech, which ended in an acrimonious fashion when the opposition walked out.

Nandlall ran afoul of the parliamentary rules when he purported to have been quoting from a Kaieteur News’ article in his presentation during the debate, but could neither produce the newspaper nor state the date the article was published when called upon to do so. His presentation was laced with controversial statements, and those were challenged by Government MPs.

In the specific instance, at minutes after 12 am last Saturday, he asked for an hour to go home and get the newspaper. His request was not allowed, and the Speaker asked him to withdraw his statement until he could produce evidence substantiating the source he was quoting from. He refused to withdraw his statement, and was thus asked to take his seat.

The Speaker then said that Nandlall was out of order and that he would no longer participate in the day’s sitting, to which Nandlall said he did not intend to further participate in the proceedings. However, in the aftermath of his being asked to sit, Nandlall, egged on by his colleagues, continued to speak loudly in the chambers, turning the proceedings into a shouting match in which both sides of the House participated.

At this stage, he was observed gathering some files and other documents on his desk, and when asked by the Speaker what he would be doing, Nandlall responded that he would be leaving. “Then you will leave,” the Speaker said. At this point, almost in unison, Nandlall’s PPP colleagues followed him in exiting the House.

A senior parliamentarian familiar with the standing orders and parliamentary procedures said Nandlall was out of line to have ignored the Speaker’s ruling. “The Speaker made a ruling. Whether Nandlall felt he was in the right, the Speaker made a ruling; and from what I observed, he was in contempt,” the MP said.

However, at a news conference hosted by the PPP on Monday, Nandlall stated that page 234 of the 12th Edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice states as follows: “The chief characteristics attaching to the Office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.” Contending that the Opposition has had cause to repeatedly complain against the Speaker’s conduct in the National Assembly, Nandlall said the sitting of the National Assembly of the 4th of November, 2016 provided another such occasion. He said it is now public knowledge that at that sitting he was prohibited from speaking and participating in the business of the National Assembly, and was subsequently expelled from the National Assembly by the Speaker.

However, based on parliamentary records, the Speaker did not expel Nandlall, but the PPP MP opted to leave.

“I am an elected member of the National Assembly. My right to speak and participate in the business of the National Assembly is grounded in the supreme law, the Constitution of Guyana. This issue was elaborately addressed by Chief Justice Chang in a case filed by me, as Attorney- General, on the 27th of November, 2012, when the then joint-Opposition gagged then Minister of Home Affairs, the Honourable Clement Rohee, from speaking in the National Assembly. In the course of his 34-page judgement, Chief Justice Chang, at page 27, posited thus “…it is the view of this court that Mr. Rohee’s right to speak in the National Assembly derives from his office as member of the National Assembly, and not from his office as an Executive Minister. Thus his right as an elected member of the National Assembly must be concomitant with his constitutional duty to speak for, and to represent, his electors in the National Assembly, who in turn have a concomitant right to be so represented.

“It is here apposite to note that Article 9 of the Constitution expressly provides: “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their elected representatives.”

Nandlall argued that, on the other hand, the Speaker is not an elected representative of the people, but is elected by the Members of Parliament, and holds office at their pleasure.

“His status, role and function lack the constitutional underpinning and security of tenure which elected Members of Parliament enjoy.” Nandlall declared, contending that his matter is compounded “by the lack of impartiality”, and noting that it is public knowledge that ministers of the Government are given days, and sometimes weeks, to produce documents.

“Often times they never do, but there is no reprimand from the Speaker. In the very sitting, Minister Bulkan was granted leave by the Speaker to produce certain documents until the next sitting of the National Assembly,” he declared.

“The public is also aware that Minister George Norton failed to produce the controversial rental agreement for the premises at Sussex Street, rented to store drugs and pharmaceuticals, when requested to do so in the National Assembly. The Speaker gave him permission to send it at a later date to the National Assembly. Two weeks hence, he did not do so”, Nandlall contended.

“However, I am ordered to instantly produce a newspaper to which I made reference during my speech. My request for an hour to do so is summarily dismissed by the Speaker, and I am ordered to withdraw the statement unless I can produce the newspaper instantly. As it turned out, I found the article to which I was referring; it vindicates what I said in my speech.

“In this entire saga, the fact that the Opposition came to the National Assembly that particular day prepared to discuss a completely different agenda, and therefore was unprepared to discuss the President’s Speech conveniently escaped the Speaker. Had I known that I was coming to speak on the President’s Speech, I would have equipped myself with the necessary newspaper clippings upon which I wish to rely. The agenda was changed immediately prior to the commencement to the sitting. In the end, the lack of impartiality and the abuse of power are axiomatic,” Nandlall charged.