Dear Mr. Speaker,
I write concerning your recent public comments regarding my nomination to parliamentary committees and the broader issues of parliamentary representation, procedural fairness, and the rights of elected Members within the National Assembly.
The matters at issue have been discussed publicly by a number of Members and political actors, myself included. That is unsurprising. Questions concerning the composition of parliamentary committees, the representation of elected Members, and the interpretation of parliamentary rules are not merely internal procedural matters. They engage principles that go to the heart of democratic representation and the effective functioning of Parliament. It is therefore important that the public record accurately reflects both the facts of what occurred and the principles that are at stake. It is in that spirit, and with respect for your office, that I offer the following response.
You stated, and I quote: “That particular MP, I believe, was set up, right? People set up this situation.” I address that characterization plainly and without equivocation: I was not set up. I was not deceived. I was not the unwitting instrument of any political manoeuvre. Members of the Opposition, exercising their own independent parliamentary judgment, chose to nominate me to serve on select committees in place of individuals from their own parties. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that decision, it was theirs to make, freely, deliberately, and legitimately. The suggestion that their act of nomination was a “set up” directed at me is without foundation, and I reject it.
Your remarks further suggested that because Hon. Member Halley and her colleagues “knew the composition of committees,” their conduct was therefore suspect, that knowledge of the rules, combined with the attempt to nominate me, amounted to an effort to “break the rule.” This characterisation is incorrect, and it inverts the very logic it purports to apply. At no point did Hon. Member Halley or any of my colleagues seek to enlarge a committee, create an additional committee seat, exceed the authorised membership configuration, or otherwise alter the numerical composition of any parliamentary body. The allocation of those committee seats and the occupation of those seats are distinct questions. In Westminster-styled parliamentary systems, the latter is usually left to the judgement of the Members and Parliamentary groupings to whom those seats have been assigned.
The nomination was made openly, deliberately, and in reliance upon that understanding. The fact that you ultimately rejected the nomination does not transform it into an attempt to break the rules or circumvent the committee structure.
You stated publicly: “MP Halley had said they knew the composition of committees. They knew. So, if you knew what the composition of committees are, why are you going to go and break the rule? It has to be a set up so that they can find a media storm over nothing.”
This reasoning warrants careful scrutiny. You have taken the fact that Members were informed about parliamentary procedure and constructed from it an inference of bad faith. That is a serious leap, and it is not supported by the record of what occurred. Knowledge of a rule does not preclude good-faith disagreement with its application. Members of Parliament are entitled, indeed, it is their duty, to test procedural boundaries, to challenge rulings they believe to be overly restrictive, and to advocate persistently for those they represent. To characterise such conduct as deceptive is to penalise competence and to treat parliamentary diligence as evidence of conspiracy.
I stand with Hon. Member Halley and my other colleagues in rejecting that allegation entirely. The concern they raised was not a “media storm over nothing.” It was a legitimate question of representation, specifically, whether a duly elected Member of Parliament could be excluded from parliamentary committees notwithstanding the decision of other Members to nominate her to serve. That question deserves a reasoned answer, not a dismissal dressed as disappointment.
Perhaps most gravely, your remarks included the following: “We have also rules in the House for dealing with MPs who deliberately mislead, criticise the lawful rulings of the Speaker. And so, let’s see what the next sitting of Parliament will bring.”
That statement demands direct address on two grounds.
First, you have placed the words “mislead” and “criticise” in the same breath, as if they describe equivalent or related offences. They do not. Criticism of a ruling is not misleading the House. Disagreement with a decision of the Chair is not misconduct. The freedom of Members to express dissent from rulings, publicly, persistently, and vigorously, is not a courtesy extended by the Speaker. It is a democratic right that precedes and supersedes the authority of any presiding officer. To suggest otherwise, and to do so in the context of impending sanctions, is to fundamentally misstate the constitutional relationship between the Chair and the membership of the House.
Second, and structurally, you have described your rulings as “lawful,” a characterisation which you yourself make, as the sole decision-maker and sole arbiter of that lawfulness. A presiding officer cannot simultaneously be the author of a ruling, the judge of its legality, and the enforcer of penalties against those who question it. That arrangement is incompatible with the separation of functions that underlies constitutional governance, and it is incompatible with the impartiality that the office of Speaker is constitutionally required to embody.
The chilling effect of your remarks, whether or not sanctions are ultimately pursued, is already real. Members of Parliament should never have cause to weigh whether speaking freely about a ruling will result in censure. That calculation has no place in a democratic legislature, and the fact that it must now be made is itself a cause for concern.
You concluded your remarks with the following counsel: “If you want people to take you seriously, if you want to stick around as long as I have been and this is counting over 30 odd years, you have to have some principles. More particularly, you’ve got to be honest. And honesty starts with yourself.”
I accept that counsel in the spirit of democratic accountability in which it ought to have been offered, and I apply it equally. Honesty, in this instance, requires acknowledging that no rule was broken. It requires acknowledging that the Members who raised concerns about committee representation did so on legitimate grounds. It requires acknowledging that equating criticism of a ruling with an offence punishable by sanction is not consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy. And it requires acknowledging that dismissing the concerns of elected Members as a “set up” designed to manufacture a “media storm” does not reflect the impartiality that the office of Speaker demands.
I acknowledge and respect your decades of service to Guyana. But longevity in public office, however honourable, does not place a public official beyond accountability, nor does it confer a cloak of infallibility. The first obligation of every elected or appointed servant of this Republic, including the Speaker, is not survival but service to the people of Guyana, is not the preservation of authority, but the faithful discharge of it and certainly not the protection of one’s office, but the protection of the institutions entrusted to one’s care. That principle applies equally to all of us. It applies to Members of Parliament. It applies to Ministers. And it applies to the Speaker of the National Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, I formally call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify or withdraw your public remarks, specifically on the following points:
The characterisation that I was “set up,” which is factually inaccurate and reputationally injurious to me and to the Members who nominated me;
The allegation that Hon. Member Halley, Opposition Chief Whip and my colleagues acted deceptively or attempted to break parliamentary rules, which is contradicted by the factual record of what occurred;
(iii) The suggestion that Members who criticise your rulings may face sanctions or other adverse consequences for doing so, which conflates lawful dissent with punishable misconduct;
(iv) The dismissal of legitimate parliamentary concerns as a manufactured “media storm over nothing,” which diminishes both the Members who raised those concerns and the public interest they represent.
This is not a personal matter, it is a constitutional one. The legitimacy of the office of Speaker rests on the confidence of all Members of this House, majority and minority alike. That confidence is not commanded by authority. It is earned through impartiality, consistency, and respect for the rights of every Member, regardless of the size of their party or the popularity of their position.
I remain committed to the strengthening of Guyana’s democratic institutions, including and especially the National Assembly. I call upon the Chair to demonstrate that same commitment by addressing these concerns with the candour and accountability that this moment requires.