Dear Editor,
The Report produced for USAID on Democracy, human rights and governance assessment: Guyana (2021) makes the following observation in several places: ‘The constitution mandates a high degree of cabinet involvement in executive decision-making while the National Assembly serves as check on the executive branch. Consequentially, the executive branch of government is both protected and isolated from outside influence because there is no real ability for the opposition, civil society or the media to penetrate the inner workings of the executive’ (p. 58). Dispiriting as that observation is, Guyanese citizens still expect the National Assembly to serve as a convening space in which Parliamentarians can discuss matters of national interest, in the interest of transparency and so that there is a public record of at least some aspects of the discussion.
In this context, the partisan actions of the Speaker confirm the low assessment of democracy in the USAID report. The Speaker has delayed the tabling of Motions and amended them unilaterally. The most recent episode concerns the Motion submitted on 16 February 2022 by MP, David Patterson, calling, inter alia, for ‘full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production as a condition for granting approval for the proposed Yellowtail development and all other future petroleum development.’ The real and present danger of oil spills to the marine life and ecosystems that line, not only our coast, but those of a huge swathe of Caribbean nations, makes the issue of full insurance coverage urgent and timely.
Yet, a month later, readers learned from a KN report that ‘The Speaker in a written response to the Member of Parliament (MP), dated February 28, 2022, informed that 13 of the 20 clauses in Patterson’s Motion have been disallowed, while two of the ‘whereas’ clauses were also amended’ (Bagot, D. (2022). Speaker weakens Opposition’s Motion on full coverage insurance. Kaieteur News, 15 March 2022. Available from: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2022/03/15/speaker-weakens-oppositions-motion-on-full-coverage-insurance/). KN reported a day later, ‘the Speaker is reported to have also told Patterson that evidence must be provided to the House, to substantiate the claims he made in his Motion’ (Kaieteur News. (2022). Speaker wants evidence that an oil spill can leave Guyana bankrupt. Kaieteur News, 16 March 2022. Available from: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2022/03/16/speaker-wants-evidence-that-an-oil-spill-can-leave-guyana-bankrupt).
Editor, I suggest that the Speaker is acting outside of his remit. Standing Order 26 of the National Assembly – admissibility of motions – listed nine conditions for admissibility of motions and indeed Standing Order 27 (2) does not require the Speaker of the National Assembly to give reasons for his/her opinion about infringements of those provisions. This matter is not covered explicitly in Erskine May’s ‘Treatise on the law, privileges, procedures and usage of Parliament’ [the Westminster UK Parliament, 25th edition, 2019, https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/. However, Part 4 Chapter 28 of this superbly organised and very accessible online edition implies that the Speaker is reasonable and that Parliament is a constructive process. The November 2011 edition of the Standing Orders for the National Assembly of Guyana refers to Erskine May’s Treatise so one may assume that the underlying concepts also apply in Guyana. If this is so, then the Speaker is not empowered to make ex cathedra statements and issue instructions without explanation. Indeed, Appendix V of the Standing Orders is a compendium of rulings by the Speaker, in which reasons for particular decisions are laid out.
I draw to readers’ attention the statement by then Speaker, H N (Ralph) Ramkarran on 27 March 2008, in which he mentions that a Member can challenge the Speaker by way of a motion – ‘Where a Member is dissatisfied with a decision of the Speaker approving a motion, he or she has a right and every opportunity to table a motion challenging the decision of the Speaker’. Then Speaker Ralph Ramkarran ended his Statement by saying, ‘Let me hasten to add that decisions of all public officials, including the Speaker, are subject to critical review by the press and public’. Editor, through your newspaper, I call on
1. MP David Patterson to present a procedural motion to allow a full debate on the issues raised in his motion gutted with little explanation by the Speaker,
2. The Speaker to allow all the clauses of MP Patterson’s Motion ‘full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production’ to be debated in our National Assembly.
MP Patterson’s Motion can be found on the Oil and Gas Governance Network’s website; https://www.oggn.website/2022/03/16/motion-liability-insurance-coverage-for-spills-submitted-to-the-national-assembly-by-david-patterson/
Sincerely,
Janette Bulkan
