Deputy Speaker – The Fall of the Curtain

Save for a slight amendment, I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion arrived at in Dr. John’s article in the STAR of the 10th instant, entitled, “The Sacrificial Lamb Consummated”. In the vicissitudes of politics, one could not have wished for a better consummation.

Taking all things into consideration, a more perfect solution could not have been found than Dr. John’s invitation to the Speaker to exercise the authority given her under section 81 of the Standing Orders to resolve knotty matters.

It is the last section in the Standing Orders that states:
“(1) The Speaker shall have power to regulate the conduct of business in all matters not provided for in these Standing Orders.
(2) The decision in all cases for which these Standing Orders do not provide, shall lie within the discretion of the Speaker and shall not be open to challenge.”

As a Doctor of Laws and a magistrate of very long standing, Dr. John knows that when a judge cannot find a legal principle on which to found a judgment he has to resort to “practical convenience”. It is important to observe that the Constitution recognizes the principle of “practical convenience” by the use of the phrases “as soon as practicable” and “as soon as convenient” in sections 35 (1) and 36 (1) respectively.

Since, therefore, the Standing Orders do not provide for the matter at hand, the Speaker would have to decide how the business of the House was to be regulated in order to accommodate the situation that has arisen. Needless to say, it would then devolve upon the Speaker to make an order, an impartial one, of course, all in harmony with reason and common sense.

Based on that section 88, says Dr. John “at the next sitting of the House, the Speaker can logically, reasonably and lawfully order the Prime Minister (Leader of Government business) to nominate one of his “majority members” as Deputy Speaker and further order the Leader of the Opposition to directly or indirectly second the motion.” I fully agree.

But then, I say, the reverse is true: for since the Speaker would be empowered to so order the Prime Minister, equally, it would be within her power to order the Leader of the Opposition to nominate a member within his own ranks to resolve the matter. That statement cannot be controverted, based, as I shall prove on the principle of practical convenience.

For the following reasons, practical convenience would require the Speaker to order the Leader of the Opposition, not the Prime Minister, to nominate one of his own to fill the vacancy:
i) all members of the Government side are Ministers and are forbidden by the Constitution to hold the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker;
ii) ministers provide a much more important service to the nation at large than do ordinary members and the inconvenience and loss would be much greater were a minister chosen;
iii) the fact that the Deputy takes the Chair only “when the Speaker is unavoidably absent” shows that the Constitution expects the Speaker to be in the Chair whenever the House meets to transact business, an indication of their relative importance;
iv) the fact too, that by s. 35 (3) of the Constitution “no business shall be transacted in the House (other than the election of a Speaker) at any time when the office of Speaker is vacant”, is a re-enforcement of the last reason;
v) the removal of a minister without just cause and in the circumstances adumbrated above would dictate that there be no loss of income to him, if defrocked merely to take the Chair when the Speaker is “unavoidably absent.”

As a final reason, I wish to extract the following from my first article in The VOICE of September 26, 2001, entitled, “Ah section 29 (1) essential!” It was in answer to the objection taken by Dr. Anthony and Professor Antoine. I said:

“The refusal of Opposition members to hold such an office sounds in tribalism, since the primary office of every member is to assist in the functioning of the House for the sake of the country. For how else could money be raised and laws passed for the good and welfare of the State?

When a constituency sends a representative to Parliament, while the affairs of the constituency are to be attended to conscientiously and well, “the greatest good for the greatest number” of all the people in that country has to be of paramount importance. This means, therefore, that in certain circumstances partisan political interests have to be shunned, and the party must embrace what is best for the country and for Parliament.

Let us now see whether the Opposition was justified in expecting the Government to draw a Minister from its ranks to fill the vacant office of Deputy Speaker.

The House is composed of 17 members, nine Ministers and eight in Opposition. Ministers work eight hours a day at least. On an average, the House meets once every 60 days for three hours. ON that basis, Ministers work 2920 hours per year while a member works 18 hours for the same period.
The Constitution deliberately excludes Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries from holding the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Logically and justifiably therefore, the Deputy would have to be chosen from among all the other members (excluding the Leader of the Opposition) who works 18 hours per year.
Were I to pose the question to illiterate hewers of wood and drawers of water in the country, the answer would be flashed in my face like lightening: “Ou nee poo pwan yon parmi say sa key pah nee anyen ar fair ah! (You must take one from among those who have nothing to do). There is never any equivocation with them. It is always straightforwardness and purity. While they cannot appeal to legal reasoning, they understand the practical convenience that would require a Deputy Speaker to be chosen from among the members of the Opposition, given the circumstances existing. Should we all then return to the country? I certainly would welcome that.”

From that position taken five years ago, I have never deviated to the slightest degree.

As Dr. John has brought the curtain down on this dispute, and we all leave the stage to the Speaker to arbitrate that constitutional cause between the new Prime Minister and the new Leader of the Opposition, let me thank Dr. John for making the case for the government, though without knowing it.

This is the consummation of the dispute. Thanks again to Dr. John: It is finished.”