Despite allowing Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee to address the National Assembly on Thursday, Speaker Raphael Trotman says any further speeches in the House by Rohee will be decided on a case-by-case basis until the controversy is finally resolved.
Trotman’s decision to allow Rohee to speak was welcomed by the government but prompted a walkout by opposition members on Thursday. Yesterday, the opposition coalition, APNU expressed “astonishment” at Trotman’s decision and reiterated its resolve to maintain its opposition to Rohee being permitted to address the National Assembly “as long as he purports to perform the functions of Minister of Home Affairs.”
When contacted, leader of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan said that he had no comment.
Meantime, Rohee, yesterday, accused the opposition benches particularly, Opposition Leader David Granger of “perpetrating a Constitutional travesty masquerading as an act of justice when in fact it is sheer political vindictiveness, malice and spitefulness being perpetrated by a few for narrow political ends.”
“Whether by majority or minority my Constitutional Right to speak in the House or outside the House is sacred and fundamental and cannot be taken away from me by one or a million vote[s],” said Rohee in a statement. “I have endured this gross violation for more than five sittings of the National Assembly and at every step, notwithstanding the presentation of credible case law and arguments based on pure law, efforts were and are still being made to frustrate and politicise the High Court Ruling in support of my freedom of expression,” he said, accusing the opposition of pursuing a personal vendetta and a witch hunt.
During Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly, Rohee was allowed to speak under the section of proceedings allotted for statements by a Minister and he addressed the crime situation. As he spoke, the opposition walked out.
“On arrival here it was indicated to me that Mr. Rohee wanted to speak on the present situation. I had spoken to members of the House on both sides and after careful consideration and given all that is happening I wish to invite Rohee to address the House,” Trotman told the Assembly at the time.
Contacted by Stabroek News yesterday, Trotman said that he allowed Rohee to speak based on several reasons including the current crime situation.
The Speaker said that he had done a lot of research and also canvassed the views of constitutional and parliamentary experts here and in the Common-wealth. He also referred to the legal opinions he had sought and referred to his ruling last year that he could find no provisions within the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, the Constitution or the Laws of Guyana which restrict an elected-member from fulfilling his functions as minister.
The Speaker said that as he canvassed the views and opinions of the experts, he continued to build the view that his original ruling was correct.
Trotman recalled that before Thursday’s sitting began, he was also approach-ed by government members who said that the minister wanted to make a statement to the National Assembly on the crime situation. Given all that has been happening in the country recently as it relates to crime including the horrific killing of a Linden child earlier this week, Trotman said, he looked at the request favourably. “I just felt that the nation needed to have a sense of what was happening in the security sector,” he said. He said that that situation was compelling enough for a statement to be made about the security situation in the country.
Further, the Speaker said that he has to weigh the business of the House based on what is transpiring and prevailing at the time. With all the crimes that have been occurring, he said that the situation was compelling reason enough. “At the end of the day, it is the Speaker’s… prerogative to decide who is to speak and not to speak,” he added.
Asked whether Rohee can now continue to address the House freely, Trotman indicated that until the matter is resolved, this would not be the case. “I will assess it on a case-by-case basis,” he said adding that he will consider what is happening in the court, the prevailing opinion in the Commonwealth and the situation in the country. He reiterated that he still stands behind his original opinion that the Speaker cannot stop a minister from speaking.
Wait
There could be a significant wait before the controversy is finally resolved. On November 22, 2012 after almost five hours of fierce arguments in Parliament Trotman ruled that a motion brought by Granger to gag Rohee would be sent to the Privileges Committee for consideration and in the interim the minister would not be allowed to bring any motion to the House. On November 27, 2012 Attorney General Anil Nandlall challenged this decision in court. On December 7 last year, Trotman said he would not proceed with his plan to have the Committee of Privileges address the matter of Rohee’s speaking until the determination of the action that Nandlall had brought.
In an interim ruling on the matter on January 11, 2013 Chief Justice Ian Chang said that Rohee as an elected member had a right to speak in the National Assembly although it does not appear to be enforceable by the court.
The ruling it seemed left the question of Rohee’s speaking to the Speaker and the procedures of the House.
The Chief Justice also noted that though these were interlocutory proceedings, the court had found it fit and necessary to make “final and definitive” pronouncements on questions of law that may have the effect of making it unnecessary for the parties to proceed to a hearing of Nandlall’s substantive motion. It is therefore unclear if and when Nandlall will move a hearing of the substantive arguments and how long that might take.
In the action, which had named both Trotman and Granger as respondents, Nandlall had asked for a declaration that the Speaker’s decision is “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, in excess of and without jurisdiction, contrary to the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, capricious, null and void and of no effect.” This was one of the remedies sought by Nandlall that was ignored by the Justice Chang.
Witch-hunt
Meantime, Rohee, in his statement yesterday, cited the no-confidence motion passed against him as well as the motion by Granger to gag him. He recalled that with respect to the “No Confidence” Motion, he spoke briefly on the matter on July 30, 2012 when it was debated in the House. “In that brief contribution, I made it clear that I will await the outcome/report of the Commission of Inquiry and will not make any comprehensive statement.
To date, the Opposition has not offered a shred of evidence to establish my personal involvement in the shooting or any other incident at Linden. All they have done is to pass political judgment to determine my suitability to be Minister of Home Affairs,” he said.
“With respect to the Motion sent to the Committee of Privileges. I have done nothing and further to this day I have not been informed what Parliamentary Privilege I violated that warrants that “violation” being sent to the said Committee. I consider this a grave injustice towards me, the people and the Party I represent,” Rohee said. “Incidentally, at the Commit-tee of Privileges the Opposi-tion is in the majority as they are in the National Assembly. The outcome is therefore predictable and is tantamount to a witch-hunt by the dictatorship of one,” he said.
According to Rohee, with every sitting of the National Assembly his “Constitutional Right to freedom of expression in this hallowed Chamber was violated in a most shameful and barefaced manner.”
In their statement, APNU recalled that opposition speakers argued that Rohee should not be permitted to speak on the grounds that over the past six months a Resolution of the National Assembly had been passed to that effect; that the Speaker himself had ruled to give further effect to that Resolution; that the matter had been referred to the Committee of Privileges and that it had also been the subject of a Motion in the High Court brought by the Attorney General.
“The Partnership iterates its resolve to maintain its opposition to Mr. Rohee being permitted to address the National Assembly as long as he purports to perform the functions of Minister of Home Affairs,” the statement said.
