Speaker walks out of National Assembly after PNCR jeers
-explains denial of Corbin motions
Stabroek News
July 9, 2004
Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran yesterday staged a dramatic exit from the chambers following hoots and jeers from some PNCR members during a statement he was making but he later returned.
During a 20-minute absence he spoke with Opposition Leader Robert Corbin – and when he returned to the Chambers he reprimanded the MPs and read his statement again from the beginning. Ramkarran’s statement was a response to complaints by Corbin on the television programme ‘Plain Talk’ on June 27, and on other occasions by other PNCR members on various television programmes and at press conferences. It invited Corbin to point out any flaw, defect or error in his reasoning or conclusions in the ruling he made on March 15, refusing to place a motion in Corbin’s name on the Order Paper.
Corbin and his colleagues - who were in the National Assembly yesterday for the first time since March - had complained that the Speaker prevented them from discussing in parliament, the issues related to the allegations by George Bacchus implicating Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj in the activities of a death squad.
But Ramkarran pointed out that their complaints, which accuse him of taking into account issues other those he should have properly considered, were never accompanied by any arguments showing why his ruling was wrong or motivated by extraneous considerations.
In a personal explanation before the House, Corbin promised to reply in writing to Ramkarran. “Had I been privy to receive a copy of your ruling I would have been able to understand some of the points in the ruling today,” Corbin said.
He did acknowledge the statements attributed to him by the Speaker, but said they were his opinions on matters which had transpired in the House. Ramkarran said that as a result of the impression conveyed to the public, several persons have asked him why he rejected the motion. “There is the false impression that there was an irregularity and that, I, in a partisan way, rejected the motion.” He said he had issued his ruling in writing to expose his decision, and hence the functioning of the National Assembly, to more public scrutiny by allowing members, the public and the press to satisfy themselves that his ruling was “not whimsical, partisan or motivated by extraneous considerations… but based on objective analyses of the Standing Orders and the rules, practices and conventions….” He said he was satisfied that the rulings he gave are “unimpeachable”.
The ruling on March 15, which was issued in writing at the time to the media, barred discussion on Corbin’s motion and Ramkarran explained that it was based on whether the motion qualified as an `adjournment motion’. He pointed out that two and half months had elapsed between the time Bacchus made his statements and the date the National Assembly first met and on which the adjournment motion was moved. He said because the rules governing an adjournment motion are many and onerous a better tactic for Corbin would have been to table a private member’s motion which requires only 14 days notice and which would have been ready for debate on March 15. He explained that an adjournment motion must, among other things, concern a matter of recent occurrence and be raised without delay.
Ramkarran also said that there was 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.
The Speaker pointed out that while it is true there have been many instances of unlawful killings the motion was not merely about unlawful killings but about the allegations by Bacchus as reported in the press in December, 2003.
“Hon. Member Mr Corbin, as an experienced Parliamentarian must be more than conversant with the basic rules in connection with adjournment motions”, Ramkarran said.
With regard to his March 18 refusal to put Corbin’s private member’s motion – the original adjournment motion now in the format of the private member’s motion and which was received the day before parliament was to meet - on the Order Paper, the Speaker said it “was hopelessly out of order,” as it consisted of a three-page introduction in a document that was three and half pages long, which “in itself is contrary to the rules”.
Also, he pointed out, the introduction contained highly objectionable and irregular wording and material including a reference to a letter Corbin wrote to President Bharrat Jagdeo on January 4, 2004 detailing serious but unproven allegations against senior government functionaries and Gajraj.
The Speaker said too that one of the resolutions of the motion called on Garaj to resign and for the National Assembly to exclude him from participation in its business. It also asks the National Assembly to approach the United Nations for assistance in appointing an international inquiry into the government’s alleged 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 part of the executive with authority to deal with the United Nations in a matter 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,” Ramkarran said.
“The language and tone in which they (the Corbin motions) 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 People’s National Congress Reform. I am even more surprised that it is being rationally defended as an acceptable document”, Ramkarran declared.
Apart from the deficiencies, the Speaker said, there were also procedural problems which could not have been overcome in the time that was available. He said Corbin may care to explain how it would have been possible to overcome the logistical problems involved in correcting, printing on the Notice Paper and circulating it in time to have the motion debated the following day.