Not So, Mr. Speaker
Perhaps the most important question that arises from the suspension from the house of representatives of PNM parliamentarians Keith Rowley and Fitzgerald Hinds is, not whether the speaker, Rupert Griffith was legally right, but whether he was politically right. But whether he was politically right or not, Griffith would still be a loser.
We must be clear in our minds that Griffith is a loser. He lost a great deal of credibility when, having been elected as a PNM parliamentarian in the previous five-year parliamentary term, he sold out to the UNC and crossed the floor. He lost again in his bid to represent the Arima seat in the present parliamentary term. And it is as a loser that he was appointed speaker of the house by the UNC (never mind the constitutional fact that it is the elected parliamentarians that must elect their speaker, not the government side a priori).
Now the constitution allows for a loser in a parliamentary election to become speaker since the speaker may come 'from among persons who are not members of either House'. Hence Griffith as speaker; he holds the position legally. But he holds it against a certain background, one whose principal characteristics are 1) betrayal of the PNM and the Arima constituency that put him in parliament in the first place, 2) purchase of his loyalty by the UNC, and 3) rejection by the Arima constituency in the parliamentary elections that led to his installation as speaker. These are clearly negative characteristics that point to clear opportunism on his part, but, frankly, one is hard put to find any positive counter-characteristics.
So the man is a loser-turned-speaker, but he proceeds to have not one but two elected parliamentarians - two winners - suspended from the house. And to compound matters, he does so legally, which is to say, without anyone (except his UNC colleagues) being able to prevent him.
I say 'except his UNC colleagues' for he could not so act without their support. The constitution is clear on the point. It says in section 59 (1), 'Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in either House shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members thereof sitting and voting.'
In the matter we are discussing, the constitution does not provide otherwise, the question was proposed by the leader of government business, Ramesh Maharaj, and the UNC with its parliamentary majority voted in favour.
It is therefore not Griffith alone that was responsible for the suspension of Rowley and Hinds, but also the UNC government. He acted on his discretionary interpretation of (re)actions of Rowley and Hinds to his authority, but was supported by the UNC parliamentarians. The suspension was not a purely legal action or a personal action taken because of disrespect for the speaker, but, overridingly, a political one.
The action of the speaker and the government raises serious legal and political questions. Some of them are as follows:
It seems asinine for an electoral loser to be able to have an electoral winner suspended. It is even worse than asinine for such a loser to have the power to use uncontestable personal discretions as a basis for ejecting a constituency's representative. And, as to whether the action was politically correct, time will tell.
- Should we have a constitution that enables a speaker chosen 'from persons who are not members of either House' to have the side that elected him suspend an elected parliamentarian from the other side?
- Should the speaker's action be opaquely discretionary and be initially enabled merely by reference to a parliamentary rule or a procedure?
- In a matter as serious as the suspension of a constituency's representative, shouldn't there be debate before a vote is taken?
- Was the action of the speaker/government politically correct?
Griffith could have exercised the option to be dispassionate, controlled and reflective; he could have called a timeout to ease tensions and reconsider things. But the loser in him denied the exercise of this much more satisfying and responsible recourse.
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
