The main Parliamentary Opposition, the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC), has filed a motion in the House to take several government Members of Parliament (MPs) before the Privileges Committee following the December 29, 2021, House fracas over the Natural Resources Fund (NRF) Bill. A motion detailing a loss of confidence in the Speaker, Manzoor Nadir has also been tabled by the Coalition party, the Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon has disclosed.
As previously reported, pandemonium erupted in the Assembly as government sought to pass amendments to the NRF – the mechanism geared at governing the monies from the country’s oil and gas sector. Opposition Members were seen wrestling the Mace – regarded as Parliament’s Authority – from Parliament staff. The bill was ultimately passed, with the Speaker admitting that a replica was used. The Opposition contends that it is “the last line of defence” against government exercising alleged “authoritarian” management of oil and gas proceeds. It further contended that the amendments give more power to government functionaries, while the regime argues that it has reduced said powers by establishing a committee comprising of individuals from different sections of society to overlook the management of the fund. The Opposition maintains that the unparliamentary removal of the Mace was necessary because it was merely “exercising the will of the people” by fending off future “thievery”.
In one of the motions seen, the party admitted to removing the mace in a bid to halt proceedings.
“[A] scene of chaos erupted in the National Assembly whereby there was noise and all members were on their feet and the Speaker inexplicably, purported to allow the debate to proceed whereby Members of the Opposition were compelled to remove the mace from the dias; believing that this would halt all proceedings…” the party said.
Interestingly, APNU+AFC has now filed a motion to take government MPs before the Committee of Privileges for “Unparliamentary Conduct”. According to the motion, members of the government’s side engaged in and used abusive and threatening language and behaviour towards Members of the Opposition and that this behaviour was unparliamentary. Further, it said that the government’s side brought the Parliament of Guyana and the National Assembly into disrepute and invited public odium into the affairs of the Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, the APNU+AFC said the following MPs should be taken before the Committee: Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, Gail Teixeira; the Prime Minister, Mark Phillips; the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall; Local Government Minister, Nigel Dharamlall; Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister, Kwame McCoy; Junior Local Government and Regional Development, Anand Persaud; Junior Housing and Water Minister, Susan Rodrigues; Jennifer Westford; Agriculture Minister, Zulfikar Mustapha; Sanjeev Datadin, Attorney-at-law; Minister of Home Affairs, Robeson Benn; Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister, Hugh Todd; Faizal Jafarally; Public Works Minister, Juan Edghill; Sheila Veerasammy; Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat; Labour Minister, Joseph Hamilton; Alistair Charlie; Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Charles Ramson Jr.; Junior Public Works Minister, Deodat Indar; Housing and Water Minister, Collin Croal; and the Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Dr Vindhya Persaud.
According to the Parliament of Guyana’s Standing Order 91, there shall be referred to this Committee any matter which appears to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly. It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider any matter so referred, and to report thereon to the Assembly.
According to the motion against the Speaker, the APNU+AFC claimed that before the Finance Minister started to present on the NRF, Opposition MPs objected vehemently to the second reading and debate, and stood to gain the Speaker’s attention, but he “failed and/or refused to acknowledge the Members standing, and instead, encouraged the Minister to proceed and thereby purported to allow the debate on the second reading of the Bill to proceed”. The party said that it was incumbent on, and imperative for, the Speaker to halt the proceedings and to restore order in the National Assembly but claims that he did not.
