In the National Assembly last week, an opposition PPP MP, Alister Charlie, criticized the use by the government of green and yellow as the colours to paint various public objects, such as car tyres around plants and trees. The criticism was that these were the colours of APNU and AFC and their use reflects the reintroduction of the doctrine of paramountcy of the 1970s whereby the ruling party held dominance over the state. The opposition expressed fears that soon, just as the PNC flag was flown at the Court of Appeal, the colours of APNU and AFC, green and yellow, would be used to paint public buildings.
The Speaker, Dr Barton Scotland, would have none of it. He ruled that green and yellow are the colours of the national flag, the Golden Arrowhead, and cannot therefore be the object of ‘lampooning’ in the House. ‘Lampooning’ appears to have been used in a broad sense, meaning ‘criticizing’ or ‘objecting to.’ Decisions of the Speaker are final. There is no appeal. But because there was no detailed rationale by the Speaker for his decision, we are left to wonder whether his ruling means that no criticism can ever be made of the use of the colours green and yellow at all in the House, or whether criticism of the use of the colours would only be disallowed if it relates to the government use of them to paint public objects. The Speaker’s decision was vigorously criticized by the opposition.
My understanding of the Speaker’s decision, by his use of the word ‘lampooning,’ without more, is that a wide interpretation is justified. There was no limitation on his decision. The ruling means that there must be
