Speaker of the House Claudius Francis went on the offensive in an effort to further clarify the much talked about spat between himself and Leader of the Opposition Allen Chastanet during Tuesday’s parliament sitting.
The altercation stemmed from a previous conversation concerning party insignia in parliament involving United Workers Party {UWP} Senator Elisha Norbert.
Chastanet came to Tuesday’s sitting wearing a party cap and other party items seemingly in protest to what he believes is unfair treatment by the speaker.
The matter and comments that followed has prompted the speak to issue a response.
“When thoughtless comments become the order of the day, fact itself becomes the casualty. Already, I believe too much has been said about last Tuesday’s actions by the Leader of the Opposition, yet silence would be mistaken for acquiescence, and so I must respond.
Despite Mr. Chastanet arriving with several items of party paraphernalia — including a cup bearing his image, party symbol, and the words “vote for” — I requested only that he remove his headwear. My objection was not to the political insignia it carried, but to the simple matter of manners: one does not wear a cap indoors, least of all in the nation’s highest chamber. He declined my invitation, and I made no further intervention. Indeed, on several occasions during my speakership, Mr. Chastanet has worn lapel pins with his party’s insignia, and I have never objected.
Would Senator Elisha Norbert apologise for his erroneous assertion that I had ruled on lapel pins in a partisan fashion? I am not holding my breath.
Like a drowning man clutching at straws and sensing his antics had backfired spectacularly — especially as even his supporters grew acidic in their criticism — he lashed out at me, accusing me of saying something I never said.
It was open to me to invoke the Standing Orders and demand a retraction. Yet I know too well Mr. Chastanet’s Hansard record on such matters. Instead, I issued a challenge: if he could produce evidence of his claim, I would immediately step down as Speaker; if he failed, he would resign as an MP. In typical style, he refused.
Thus, the matter rests. His refusal speaks louder than any words. The people’s business continues, while his immaturity remains on full display.”
The issue appears far from over. The speaker and the opposition leader have a long history of being at odds with each other particularly as it relates to the business of parliament.