I read with uttermost shock the decision of the Speaker of parliament to decline the recall of parliament. This follows a request by the Majority leader, requesting the Speaker to reconvene parliament for two days (Thursday November 28, 2024, and Friday, November 29, 2024), pursuant to Orders 57 (3) 58 (4) of the standing orders of parliament. The recall was expected to address 22 outstanding government business.
The Speaker, in a memo to the Majority Caucus on Tuesday, November 26, declined the request, noting that Parliament would resume after the elections to address essential matters.
How we got here
While the circumstances leading to the abrupt disruption in the operations of parliament is well-known, it is interesting how, all of us appeared to have allowed parliament to conduct itself in this way. In a most politically tactical manner, the speaker found an interesting way not to comply with the directive of the Supreme court to have the four ousted parliamentarians reinstated. In my estimation, the Speaker perfectly played the script that was being run by some sympathizers of the National Democratic Congress. From the chairman of the party demanding its members not to heed to any recall to the threats by the ordinary party fanatics, who have always maintained that the Supreme court, could not order parliament around, it is obvious that the politically experienced Speaker of parliament, on this occasion, used his experience to maneuver his way through the constitutional crisis.
Citing reasons for his refusal to reconvene parliament, the Speaker in a memo dated November 26, 2024, noted:
“This season is for the government, parties, and both presidential and parliamentary candidates to present their manifestos to the people and to account and justify how the mandate given them by voters for the four-year term of office has been applied to the benefit of the people,”
‘‘Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 296 (a) and (b) of the Constitution,1992, and the closeness of your proposed dates to the general elections, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the national interest to interrupt the campaigns of member and parties by a recall to plenary sitting of parliament’’, he added.
He proceeded to decline the request, as follows:
“The national interest would better be served if members exhibit conduct of honour, empathy, and humility in the performance of their duties. In the circumstances, I am neither inclined nor disposed to exercise my discretion in favour of your request. The request is accordingly declined,”
In the light of the foretasted reasons, which largely bothers on the discretionary will of the Speaker, these are the sense I make of the Speaker’s decision to decline a recall of parliament.
- The operation of parliament can be sacrificed for political expediency: I am amazed that a speaker, who recently called out members of parliament for undermining the authority of parliament with their recurrent legal suits, will ever make any decision that would serve to prioritize political interests of parliamentarians over a bigger legislative duty, which is more national in nature and scope. In my estimation, this action only cements the decision of the chairman of the NDC not to have members from the caucus attend parliamentary sitting. I do not want to consider this as a mere coincidence.
- A partisan, not a National Interest: How on earth can the Speaker justify his decision not to reconvene parliament because elections are in the offing is for the national interest? Truly, this is only a partizan matter and has nothing to do with the national interest. Indeed, the reopening of parliament would have rather served the interest of nation. This is because that would have opened the opportunity for the 22 bills and government business, that have been stranded over the period of parliament’s absence, to be considered. I am unable to come to terms with how a constituency campaign by a prospective parliamentarian should override outstanding national or legislative issues.
- A dangerous and unsustainable precedence: By the memo, I am fully convinced that the speaker is setting a precedence to the effect that the activities of parliament can grind to a halt anytime same crushes with the partisan interests of its members. This is the extent to which this decision by the Speaker is unsustainable and a complete affront to parliament and the entire nation.
- The Decision should have been left to the Members: Only a member of parliament is in the position to determine that their presence in parliament, once parliament is reconvened, will affect his or her political fortunes. In any event, not all current parliamentarians are even contesting for the upcoming elections. This decision should have been left squarely at the discretion of the members, rather than the Speaker. By this decision, the Speaker is essentially taking part in a partisan expedition, which is equally a dangerous precedence.
Conclusion
Aside from the fact that the Speaker, has creatively and essentially stifled the supreme court on the matter that has been the center of this contention, I believe his decision to suggest that keeping parliament closed is in the best interest of the nation is unjustifiable and far-fetched. Truly, the contrary would have been our interest as a people. It appears the petty partisan politics, which informed the long hiatus of parliament, which many have described as a constitutional crisis, is what has informed the Speaker’s current decision. This must carefully be watched.
Samuel Arthur
Media and Communications Consultant.