Speaker stands by criticism of police over Parliament invasion
Stabroek News
April 5, 2003
The Speaker of the National Assembly Hari N. Ramkarran has defended his criticism of the police for not taking stern action against several PNCR MPs who invaded Parliament Chambers during the reading of budget speech two Fridays ago.
The Speaker was responding to a statement by the PNCR which said that Ramkarran had inappropriately called upon the police to restore order during the parliament session.
According to the PNCR, the PPP/C’s “outburst of frenzied comment and abuse” in response to the protests is a “thinly disguised attempt to distract the nation from issues which affect the very survival of Guyana as a nation.”
Two Fridays ago the presentation of the budget was briefly halted by a group of protestors, including several PNCR parliamentarians, after they had side-stepped police barricades and entered the compound of the Ocean View Convention Centre, current venue for the sitting of the National Assembly.
Just after the sitting had resumed, Ramkarran had noted that the parliament represented one of the highest symbols of democracy in a society. The PNCR release contended that “it is only when the National Assembly is reformed, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic, that it will become the hallowed institution that it urgently must become to serve the interest of all Guyanese.”
“This is the crux of the PNCR’s struggle with the PPP/C in respect to the parliament,” the PNCR asserted, adding that the ruling party’s continued resistance and propaganda “will not serve to transform the National Assembly from its current rubber-stamp status.”
The PNCR in defending its protest actions pointed out that “the right to protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic which is the supreme law of the land.”
The party further declared that as a legitimate political organization, it “will use all lawful means at its disposal to expose the farce which is now represented as the National Assembly.”
The speaker had also decried the response of the police to the protest activity that had briefly interrupted the parliamentary proceedings. But in the view of the PNCR, the police handled the situation in a professional manner and must be commended. The release said that with the support of PNCR leaders, the police were able to bring the situation back to normal in a short time.
The PNCR further contended that the law limits the authority of the police around the precincts of parliament and the police have no jurisdiction in the parliament chambers unless invited by the speaker. The party charged that the speaker having first failed in his duty, then sought to encourage the police to act improperly.
However, Speaker Ramkarran has deemed the PNCR’s conclusions about the law, his powers and the propriety of his actions as “incorrect and misplaced.”
In a release, Ramkarran stated that “there is no law that limits the jurisdiction of the police in the parliament chamber or its precincts.” He noted further this is being confused with the authority of the Speaker over conduct in the National Assembly while it is in session at which time the police are obliged to carry out the directions of the speaker.
The PNCR had referred to Standing Order 40, saying that the issue of discipline in the National Assembly is entirely in the hands of the speaker.
But Ramkarran argued that the Standing Order applies only when the National Assembly is in session, and during a suspension the speaker, not being in the chair, cannot exercise the authority over an unauthorised invasion of the parliament chamber.
The speaker who had suspended last Friday’s sitting because of the protest action contended that it was then the duty of the police to exercise their authority to “prevent a breach of the peace anywhere and at any time.”
He added “at the time of the invasion of the National Assembly by Mr Jerome Khan and Mr Abdul Kadir, the sitting of the National Assembly had been suspended and the police were under a duty to protect the Chamber from invasion by unruly and disorderly persons. Their failure to do so elicited a justified comment from me”.
The PNCR also described the behaviour of the protestors as “moderate”, considering the high level of stress which overshadows every citizen trying to cope with unending economic hardship and the trauma of brutal crime. It pointed to what it said were several instances of the PPP/C’s misbehaviour in and around Parliament while it was in opposition including the lifting of the mace by the late President, Dr Cheddi Jagan, the throwing of a glass in the direction of the Speaker by a PPP MP and the scattering of flour in the halls of the National Assembly by former President Mrs Janet Jagan.
The PNCR release added that the party’s restraint since December 22, 2002 should be viewed as a reflection of its desire to act in good faith in light of the impending discussions with the PPP/C, and in the hope that there would have been a new approach to the serious problems facing the country. In that light the PNCR is urging the PPP/C to act with diligence to have the outstanding matters that led to the parliamentary impasse resolved expeditiously.
