SPEAKER of the National Assembly, Mr Raphael Trotman has been taken to task for saying that President Donald Ramotar’s decision on Monday to prorogue the first session of the 10th Parliament was “most undemocratic [and] most distasteful.”

His comments have been deemed controversial, given that the Head of State merely exercised his constitutional right in the matter.

The ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has added its voice to the slew of criticisms that have been raised since Trotman’s statements were made at a specially convened meeting with Members of Parliament (MPs) from the combined opposition in the National Assembly’s chambers hours after the prorogation announcement.

“Speaker Trotman clearly has got his facts all wrong and is viewing current realities through the prism of a politically biased and jaundiced mind. This stance taken by him objectively plays up to the opposition gallery, but certainly cannot advance the political health of the nation, which has been seriously ruptured by the uncompromising and vindictive actions taken by the combined opposition,” the PPP said in a statement released yesterday.

CONTENTIOUS PARALLEL
Among the many contentions expressed by the Speaker of the House was that the prorogation proclamation can be likened to the suspension of the Constitution by the British Government in 1953. “(This is) most undemocratic (and) most distasteful, because the difference between then and now is that then it was done by the Mother Country; now it is being done by our own,” he had said on Monday.

The ruling party views this stance as a most contentious parallel. “One is led to assume that Mr. Trotman is either totally unfamiliar with the political and historical antecedents that led to the suspension of the 1953 Constitution and the forcible ejection of the popular and democratically elected PPP government, or that he is being intellectually dishonest in trying to juxtapose what happened at that time with the legal and constitutional action taken by President Ramotar to restore normalcy to the body politic,” the PPP said.

The ruling party outlined three major points to support its position on the controversial parallel drawn by Trotman:
* One: That the suspension of the Constitution by the British Government was done mainly because of “ideological and geo-political considerations” and “out of fear” that the country was pursuing programmes and policies that were meant to favour the working class and not the moneyed class. In other words, there was a distinct ideological and class context to the suspension of the Constitution back then

* Two: That the suspension of the Constitution brought to an end the life of the PPP administration, which was then replaced by an interim government which, for the most part, was made up of the very persons who had been rejected at the polls in what was the first election to be held under universal adult suffrage; and

* Three: That the atmosphere at that time had been characterised by intimidation and suppression of fundamental human rights, including the right of assembly and to engage in protest action. It was during that period that both Dr. Jagan and his wife Janet had been imprisoned for six months on trumped up charges.

“A salient point to note is that it was the PPP that successfully waged the struggle for the universalization of the suffrage. The suspension of the Constitution was therefore an aberration of the democratic aspirations of the electorate, who (had) voted overwhelmingly for the PPP, which had won a landslide victory,” the PPP said.

The PPP added: “The suspension of the Constitution was therefore anti-national, and served to blunt the patriotic and nationalistic aspirations of the Guyanese people, who were just beginning to savour the joy of democracy and elected governance after nearly one hundred and fifty years of imposed colonial rule.”

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
The ruling party made it clear that it supported the Head of State’s decision. “The decision by President Ramotar has absolutely nothing in common with the dispensation which obtained at the time of the suspension of the Constitution,” the PPP said.

The PPP highlighted that, instead of prorogation of Parliament, President Ramotar could have gone the route of dissolving the Parliament, paving the way for early general elections –- the same result that the Alliance For Change-sponsored no-confidence motion against the current administration would have obtained if it had been passed at the sitting of the National Assembly last Monday.

The party noted that the President instead opted to make use of constitutional and legal mechanisms to preserve the life of Parliament and democracy, with the aim of seeking some measure of political accommodation in dealing with matters of grave national importance.

“Among these are the holding of local democratic elections; the passage of important pieces of legislation to advance the common good, such as the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill; and the telecommunications bills aimed at opening up the sector and making it much more competitive,” the ruling party said.

President Ramotar’s decision was lauded as the “more sensible and politically desirable” option, since it leaves the door wide open for fresh and innovative thinking on the way forward for the country.

The President’s decision to prorogue Parliament followed an address to the nation on November 4, 2014, in which he stated that it was his desire for the National Assembly, in its post-recess sittings, to deliberate and give priority to important matters relating to the development of the country and the future of all Guyanese.

Unfortunately, the combine Opposition parties, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), indicated their intention to forge ahead with the AFC-sponsored no-confidence motion, which would have triggered a dissolution of the 10th Parliament and make way for fresh general elections.

As such, the President, in keeping with his November 4 commitment, moved to prorogue the National Assembly to pave the way for greater dialogue, in the interest of the Guyanese people.

The principal effect of ending a session of Parliament by prorogation is that all parliamentary business is terminated and Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned. All unfinished business is dropped from or “dies” on the Order Paper, the National Assembly and all committees lose their power to transact business, thus providing a fresh start for the next session. No committee can sit during a prorogation. Bills which have not received presidential assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed.

Section 70 (1) of the Guyana Constitution says that: “The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue Parliament.”