The PNCR's has peddled accusations that the Speaker did not allow it a chance to present a motion during its last attendance at Parliament. On the July 8 Sitting the Speaker set the record straight. Below is the text of the letter the Speaker sent to the Opposition Leader explaining why the motion was not allowed, as well as the speaker's public statements at the July 8 Sitting:
ANN0UNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON JULY 8 SITTING OF PARLIAMENT
Today's Stabroek News in a report at page 2 under the headline "PNCR for Parliament
today" states as follows:
"Speaking yesterday at a specially convened press conference held at the
PNCR headquarters at Congress Place, Leader of the Opposition, Robert Corbin
said that for several months the party had been calling for the report to be
considered in Parliament with a view to it being adopted and implemented.
He said that in March, the Speaker of the National Assembly disallowed a
motion from PNCR Parliamentarian Raphael Trotman calling for Parliament to
debate the Report. The Speaker had said that the Motion was ill-conceived."
I do not know if the report accurately reflects what Hon. Member Mr. Robert
Corbin said. On the assumption that it does, I wish to state the following: Hon. Member
Mr. Raphael Trotman wrote to me on the 19 th March, 2004 , submitting a motion
regarding the Interim Report of the Disciplined Forces Commission. The Motion
resolved as follows:
"The Clerk of the National Assembly be immediately instructed to place the
Interim Report of the Disciplined Forces Commission on the Order Paper for the
obtaining of an affirmative resolution of this National Assembly."
The Motion was out of order because the placing of a Motion on an Order Paper
is an administrative function of the Parliament Office.
The Motion has to be submitted, approved by me, then published in a Notice
Paper and then placed on the Order Paper fourteen days from the day on which the notice
was published before it can be debated.
For the National Assembly to direct the Clerk to place the Interim Report on the
Order Paper is contrary to the Standing Orders; it is not a Motion and is placing the cart
before the horse.
After studying the Hon. Member's letter I directed the Clerk to reply which he did
on the 30 th March, 2004 , offering a re-drafted clause which states:
"The National Assembly of the Parliament of Guyana approves the
recommendations of the Interim Report of the Commission laid in the National
Assembly on the 11 th December, 2003 ."
I also directed the Clerk to offer Hon. Member Mr. Trotman a copy of a draft
Motion prepared by the Parliament Office for the use of any Member of Parliament.
The Clerk received no response to his letter of 30 th March, 2004 . I am more than
amazed to have received a document of the type that I did purporting to be a Motion.
The comment reported in the Stabroek News conveys an incorrect and incomplete
impression of what transpired. The Motion was out of order and no one can conceivably
argue that it was. The Parliament Office tried to assist in offering a correction. The offer
was not taken up.
Had all of this been revealed, or if it was revealed, had it been reported, no one
could have been left with the impression that I or the Parliament Office unjustifiably
rejected the letter from Hon. Member Mr. Trotman.
I am circulating the letter from Hon. Member Mr. Trottnan, his draft Motion, the
Clerk's response and the draft Motion from the Parliament Office.
Hon. Members will note that I did not describe the Hon. Member's Motion as "ill
conceived. "
ANNOUNCEMENT TWO BY THE SPEAKER
On the evening of Sunday, 27 th June, 2003 , the Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin, Leader of the Opposition, on the television programme "Plain Talk" complained about my rejection of his Motion on the 1 st March, 2004 , seeking an adjournment of the National Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.
In relation to his second proposed Motion sent to me on the 18 th March, 2004 , for debate the following day if his other Motion for a suspension of the Standing Orders had been passed, Hon. Member Mr. Corbin said that I refused to place it on the Order Paper for "flimsy" reasons.
In both matters I gave written rulings based on only some of the reasons which applied.
Time constraints prevented me from exploring at that time all of the reasons why the
Motions should be rejected. The first Motion was delivered to me at 12.10 p.m. , (it is
required to be delivered by 11.00 a.m. ,) on the 1 st March, 2004 , to be moved in the
National Assembly at 2.00 p.m. , the same day. It consisted of four typewritten pages.
The second Motion, identical or almost identical to the first, was received by me at about midday on the 18 th March, 2004, and Hon. Member Mr. Corbin proposed to debate it the following day, subject to the suspension of the Standing Orders as I stated above.
My first ruling was based on whether the Motion qualified as what is called an
'Adjournment Motion'. My second ruling, contained in a letter to Hon. Member Mr. Corbin dated the 18 th March, 2004 , was based on the contents of the Motion. Sufficient
issues were examined in both cases to satisfy me that on those issues the Motions failed, even though there were other issues that I could not explore.
Prior to Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin's criticism, there have been regular complaints
on television programmes and press conferences by Members of the Opposition PNC/R that they have been prevented by me from debating the issues contained in the Motions.
One such was made by the Hon. Member Mr. Corbin at a press conference on Thursday, 10 th June, 2004 , or on television programme on 13 th June, 2004 . These complaints which imply that my rulings were motivated by reasons other than those which I should have properly considered, have never been accompanied by any arguments showing why they were wrong or motivated by extraneous considerations. Hon. Member Mr. Corbin's most recent complaint is that I did not have adequate reasons for rejecting his Motion.
I had always intended that my rulings should speak for themselves and they were made
available to the press. But having regard to this recent accusation by the Hon. Member
Mr. Corbin, I consider it necessary to inform the National Assembly, the public and the
press of the circumstances surrounding this matter and to explain my rulings. The National Assembly is governed by rules called "the Standing Orders" which I am obliged to interpret and uphold. In this responsibility, and specifically in connection with the qualifications for Motions, I have no discretion. In the case of Hon. Member Mr. Corbin's Motions, the Standing Orders were clearly and obviously not complied with.
I am satisfied that the rulings which I gave in both cases are unimpeachable. Even though I am not required to do so, I give written rulings whenever it is possible even thought, as far as I am aware, few Speakers, if any, do. The reason for this is to expose my decisions, and hence the functioning of the National Assembly, to more public scrutiny by giving opportunities to Members, the public and the press to satisfy themselves that my rulings are not whimsical, partisan or motivated by extraneous considerations but are based on objective analyses of the Standing Orders and the rules, practices and conventions which apply. I believe that this practice would elevate the role and stature of the National Assembly in governance and reduce allegations of partisanship. Unfortunately, these efforts have not yet succeeded.
A period of two and half months elapsed between the time of the publication of the allegations of the late George Bacchus in December, 2003, and the 15 th March, 2004, when the National Assembly first met and on which date the Adjournment Motion was moved. However, only 14 days notice is required for a Private Member's Motion. Had a Private Member's Motion been tabled and approved as late as the end of February, 2004, it would have been ready for debate by the 15thMarch. Such a Motion could have been filed but no explanation has given as to why it was not and why it was necessary to resort to the "very potent procedural device" (Kashyap on Parliamentary Procedure) of an Adjournment Motion the rules for which are many and onerous.
Hon. Member Mr. Corbin, as an experienced parliamentarian, must be more than
conversant with the basic rules in connection with adjournment Motions, some of which
are; (1) the matter must be of recent occurrence and raised without delay; (2) the fact that
it is raised at the first opportunity, the National Assembly not having met before, does not
qualify a Motion that may have otherwise qualified; (3) the fact that the grievance is
continuing is not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence; (4) in relation to recently, the
matter must have arisen suddenly in the manner of an emergency and not over a series
of weeks; (5) the fact must be admitted or established. The Adjournment Motion contravened all of these rules. These are not rules of my invention. They are contained
in the texts which I replied on and cited.
There is not a single case in Guyana or elsewhere of an Adjournment Motion being allowed on disputed allegations based on press reports as opposed to proven and
existing events in the nature of an emergency. In fact, Kashyap on Parliamentary
Procedure states on page 787: "Press reports cannot be accepted as authoritative for
purposes of Adjournment Motions". True, there have been many instances of unlawful
killing. I said that in my ruling on the Adjournment Motion that the matter was serious.
But the Motions were not merely about the unlawful killings but about the allegations of
the late George Bacchus as reported in the press since December.
In preparing my ruling I dealt with some of these issues. I could not deal all the issues for the reason stated above. I did not even have time to examine the Motion itself If I had done so I would have unhesitatingly ruled it out of order for the reasons which I rejected the Private Member's Motion, set out below, which was identical to the Adjournment Motion.
On 18 th March, 2004 , Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin submitted to me the same Motion as a Private Member's Motion, which, as stated above, requires 14 days notice. He explained to me that he intended to have the motion debated the following day by seeking a suspension of the Standing Orders. I explained to Hon. Member Mr. Corbin that the Motion had to be first approved by me and then be printed on a Notice Paper which had to be circulated and it did not seem to me that there would be sufficient time to complete these tasks. Nevertheless, I agreed to examine the Motion.
The Motion was hopelessly out of order. It consisted of a three page introduction in a document of three and a half pages. This in itself is contrary to the rules. But the introduction contained highly objectionable and irregular wording and material. It refers to a letter written by Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin to His Excellency President Jagdeo on the 15 th January, 2004 , and sets out a large amount of serious but unproven allegations against 'senior government functionaries' and Hon. Member Mr. Ronald Gajraj. It accused persons of carrying out killings as executioners. It asserts, without evidence, that every citizen and resident of Guyana is aware that there is a group or there are groups that appear to be targeting and executing persons. It accused His Excellency President Jagdeo of not being serious and of being engaged in a cover up. It questions the Government's legitimacy to continue in office. The entire document is in this vein. It nevertheless concedes that Hon. Member Mr. Ronald Gajraj denies the charges made against him.
Among the resolutions moved are that the National Assembly calls on Hon. Member Mr.
Ronald Gajraj to resign and that the National Assembly excludes him from participation in its business. It moves that the National Assembly approach the United Nations for assistance in appointing an international inquiry into the Government's involvement in
State sponsored death squads.
The National Assembly does not have the power to exclude the Hon. Member Mr.
Ronald Gajraj from participation in its business and is not a part of the executive with authority to deal with the United Nations in matters relating to the business of the Executive.
Further, the conduct of His Excellency the President cannot be questioned except by way of a Motion for that purpose.
The language and tone in which they are framed have no place in the National Assembly of Guyana or of any other Parliament. They are so offensive to the rules of Parliamentary Practice that I am quite surprised to have received such a document from a party as experienced as the Peoples National Congress/Reform: I am even more surprised that it is being rationally defended as an acceptable document.
In my letter to Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin, I could not have dealt with all of these issues for the reasons I have already explained. But I analysed enough of the rules to demonstrate that the Motion did not qualify.
Even if it had qualified, there would have been a procedural problem which could not be overcome. If the Motion was approved it would have had to be printed and circulated on a Notice Paper. The Parliament Staff was engaged late that evening in preparing for the next day's sitting so that a Notice Paper could not be printed. Assuming that a Notice Paper could be printed, the Motion suspended the Standing Orders would have had to be moved and passed before an Order Paper could be printed and circulated. This would not have been at all possible in the few hours which were available. I pointed out in my letter to Hon. Member Mr. Corbin that the Motion, which I found to be defective, could not be corrected, printed on a Notice Paper and circulated in time to have the debate occur the following day. Hon. Member Mr. Corbin may care to explain, having regard to his unusual request, without precedent in Guyana , and having regard to his utterly defective Motion, how it would have been possible to overcome the logistical problems described above. It is to be noted that the competent Parliament Staff in relation to these matters is engaged in the business of the National Assembly during sessions.
I once again make my rulings available and invite Hon. Member Mr. Robert
Corbin, any other Member of the Opposition PNC/R, the press or the public to
point out any flaw, defect or error in my reasoning or conclusion in the rulings
themselves or in this statement. The textbooks which are referred to would be made
available, if requested, by the Parliamentary Library.
Sgd. HON. HARI N. RAMKARRAN, S.C., M.P.,
......................................................
Speaker of the National Assembly
8 th July, 2004
RULING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
An Adjournment Motion consisting of six pages and six resolutions was received by me
at 12.10 p.m. The Hon. Member Mr. Robert Corbin informed me of his intention to introduce the Motion at 11.45 a.m.
On a ruling by my distinguished predecessor, the Hon. Sase Narain, Adjournment
Motions are required to be lodged with the Clerk by 11.00 a.m. , on the day on which it is intended to be moved. The rational for the rule is clearly demonstrated in this case. I have been unable to properly read the document, much less study it.
Nevertheless several features are' immediately apparent.
The issues which are referred to in the Motion occurred between December 2003 and January 2004. There has been more than sufficient time for a Motion to be lodged for debate. Only 14 days notice is required for a Private Member's Motion. The rules which apply to a Motion do not apply to an Adjournment Motion and I have no doubt that some
of the matters raised are proper subjects for debate.
As Members are aware the subject of the Adjournment Motion must be definite, urgent and of public importance.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice Seventeenth Edition at page 364 defines "definite" as " a single specific matter," "not couched in general terms or covering a great number of cases," "not offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available" and "not importing an argument".
There are 34 "Whereas" (Introductory) clauses in the Motion and the first such clause
invokes seven (7) distinct issues which are described in the clause as "several allegations"
In relation to the issue of " urgency " the matter must be of recent occurrence and raised without delay. In this regard Erskine May states at page 365: " The fact that a grievance is continuing is not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence".
I referred to the fact that the events are dated between December and January and that there was sufficient time for a Private Member's Motion.
The matter must be of public importance. I have no doubt that the issues raised are of public importance.
In Parliamentary Procedure by Kashyat it is stated at page 767 that the matter must have arisen "suddenly in the manner of an emergency and should not have arisen over a series of weeks ". There is also a requirement that the fact be " admitted or established."
The same author describes an Adjournment Motion as "a very potent procedural device " because it disrupts the normal business of the House because of its urgency.
For the reasons of:
Late notification;
Multiplicity of issues;
The fact that the issues arose prior to the end of January;
And the other reasons I have described.
I am unable to allow the Motion.
I have not dealt with issues of jurisdiction, the provisions of the Police Act, sub judice
and others.
Sgd. BON. HARI N. RAMKARRAN, S.C., M.P.,
.....................................................
Speaker of the National Assembly
15thMarch, 2004
Letter to Robert Corbin from the Speaker
March 18, 2004
Mr. Robert R.O. Corbin, M.P.,
Leader of the Opposition,
Congress Place ,
Sophia,
Georgetown .
Dear Mr. Corbin,
I refer to your letter of March 17, 2004 , about which we spoke this morning and
which I received late this morning.
Your request is that the Motion be placed on the Notice Paper in order to enable you to move the suspension of the appropriate Standing Order to facilitate a debate tomorrow, if your Motion for suspension is successful. As you are aware and as I explained, I am required to approve the Motion before it is placed on the Notice Paper.
You will appreciate that the time given me was very short in the circumstances
but I undertook to you that I will treat the matter with the utmost urgency.
Before I set out my views the staff of the National Assembly will be engaged until
very late this evening (it is now 5.00 p.m.) preparing a Supplementary Order Paper and
other materials for tomorrow's sitting.
Tomorrow morning will be taken up with physical preparations.
I refer to the Standing Orders and authorities which I invoke in support of my ruling.
Standing Order No. 35 entitled "Contents of Speeches" which I apply to any
written material states:
"(8) The conduct of the President or any other person performing the
functions of the Office of the President, Members of the Assembly, Judges
of the Supreme Court of Judicature or other persons performing judicial
functions shall not be raised except upon a substantive Motion moved for
the purpose."
I should point out that the conduct of the Honourable Member Ronald Gajraj is not raised but assumed and on the basis of this assumption the Motion calls not for a condemnation of the Honourable Member's involvement but for his resignation and for
"an independent enquiry into the serious allegations of the existence of a State Sponsored
Death Squad (s) in which he is alleged to be involved."
The conduct of the President is also referred to in the Motion.
A statement of direct relevance and referring to the same issue is contained in
Erskine May Parliamentary Practice 17thEdition at page 396:
"For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save
upon a direct and substantive Motion to that effect. No statement of that
kind can, therefore, be embodied in a Notice proposing to call the attention
of the House to a Stated matter."
I have been unable in the time available to me to prepare a more detailed view or
to analyse the Motion in writing. But in arriving at my conclusion I have relied on two
passages from text books on Parliamentary Procedure. The first is from Canada
contained in House of Commons Practice and Procedure edited by Robert Marleau and
Camille Montpetit at page 474:
"Before reading the Motion to the House, it is the Speaker's duty to ensure
that the Motion is procedurally in order. This is done by verifying that the notice requirement (if any) was satisfied; that the wording of the Motion corresponds with the notice; and it contains no objectionable or irregular wording. Any part of a Motion found out of order will render the whole Motion out order."
The second passage taken from the Australian Jurisdiction is from House of
Representatives Practice Fourth Edition edited by I.C. Harris at page 288:
"The Standing Orders direct the Speaker to amend any Notice of Motion
containing unbecoming expressions or which offends against any Standing
Order of the House, before it appears on the Notice Paper. The House in
effect places an obligation on the Speaker to scrutinize the form and
content of Motions which are to come before the House.
It has been ruled that a Notice of Motion practically incorporating a
speech cannot be given. In 1977 the Speaker referred to the form of
notices, noting. that notices which were inordinately and unnecessarily
long continued to be given, and that Members were tending to use notices
to narrate a long argument rather than to put a concise proposition for
determination by the House. The Speaker said that if Members continued
to misuse the procedure he would have to intervene to have Members
reform their notices or to have the Clerks eliminate the argument and
unnecessary statements."
In this regard my distinguished and esteemed predecessor, Mr. Sase Narain,
repeatedly rejected Motions that contained either long or argumentative notices and
established the convention regarding notices that were clearly set out in the above
passage.
The Motion therefore is in breach of Standing Order No. 35 and the practices and
conventions set out above.
The Motion is too long to be corrected and to' obtain your approval of the correction in sufficient time for a Notice Paper to be prepared and circulated. As it stands, the Motion requires extensive overhaul to render it a dismissible.
Yours faithfully,
…………………..
HARI N. RAMKARRAN, S.C., M.P.
Speaker of the National Assembly
TOP
Sunday,
July 18, 2004