A Deputy essential?

By G.A.Dwyer Astaphan

They ‘solved’ the problem by having Mr. Ricky Skerritt resign his Cabinet post on or before that date (which the nation found out from the Attorney General from Parliament on that day), and when, as expected, Mr. Vincent ‘Juicy’ Byron, declined Mr. Sam Condor’s nomination of him to be Deputy Speaker, Mr. Skerritt was elected to the post.

With that done, the Constitutional requirements to get the Parliament started on its legislative agenda were now satisfied.

If you have been following the public discussion of this matter over the last few weeks, you will have become aware of Section 32 of the Constitution of St. Kitts & Nevis (which deals with Speaker and Deputy Speaker matters).

And you will have learned that at the opening of Parliament after an election, no business can be transacted before the Speaker - Section 32(1) and 32(2) and Deputy Speaker -Section 32(3) are elected.

So all of that was done on 10th March, after which came the oaths of members, the Throne Speech, and the adjournment.

Which meant that the National Assembly was now properly constituted, and ready to do its work.

Section 32(4) states that “no business shall be transacted in the National Assembly (other than the election of a Speaker) at any time when the office of Speaker is vacant”.

Neither that Section nor any other part of the Constitution, as far as I am aware, states that the business of the National Assembly cannot be transacted if the office of Deputy Speaker is vacant.

But does that Section refer only to the person who is the Speaker? Or does it refer also to the position which can be occupied, not only by the person who is the Speaker, but also by the person who is Deputy Speaker and who may, from time to time, sit in the chair?

The Government, probably holding the view that it relates only to the person who is the Speaker, then decided that it was time, just 24 hours after he had been sworn in as Deputy Speaker, to have Mr. Skerritt resign from that office and be reinstated as Minister of Tourism.

(To say that over the past nine months this nation has been given good reason to learn about its Constitution and how it is supposed to work, or not work, would perhaps be an understatement).

As a result of these actions over the past few days, there is now no Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly.

And if you go by the strict interpretation of the words of Section 32(4), you might conclude that that is okay. After all, does it not say that the business of the National Assembly is blocked only by a vacancy in the office of Speaker, not Deputy Speaker?

But is that interpretation correct?

Section 32(1) states inter alia that “if the office of Speaker falls vacant at any time before the next dissolution of Parliament, the Assembly shall, as soon as practicable, elect another person to the office”.

And Section 32(3) says inter alia that “if the office of Deputy Speaker falls vacant at any time before the next dissolution of Parliament, the Assembly shall, as soon as convenient, elect another such member to that office”.

There are two differences between 32(1) and 32(2).

First, the former refers to “another person” because, as we know, the Speaker can be, but does not have to be, a member of the Assembly (provided that he or she is not a Member of Cabinet or a Parliamentary Secretary), while the latter refers to “another such member” because the Deputy Speaker has to be a member of the Assembly.

And second, the former wants a new Speaker to be elected “as soon as practicable” while the latter wants the Deputy Speaker to be elected “as soon as convenient”.

Why the use of “practicable” in one case, and “convenient” in the other?

“Practicable” means feasible, do-able, realistic, possible, workable, viable or practical, while “convenient” means suitable, expedient, opportune, fitting or handy.

Some persons might interpret different intents with the use of these two different words, and argue that the election of a Speaker is more urgent than that of a Deputy Speaker, while others might construe the words to mean essentially the same thing and to say: fill the vacancy, whether that of Speaker or Deputy Speaker, with the same degree of urgency.

Let us consider two different views on the matter.

The first, perhaps the easier view, is that once a Deputy Speaker is elected, then it is essentially about the Speaker only, with some wiggle room and time for a Deputy Speaker to be appointed (when “convenient”) and in the interim, there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from doing its work  and passing laws.

Those who hold this view will argue that they get their justification from the words of Section 32(4). “That is what the words say, and that is the end of it”, would be their argument.

And they may be correct. What do you think?

This view, which I shall refer to as “the Deputy isn’t Always Essential”, is the one which, as I have said, is obviously held by the Government, as revealed in the resignation of Mr. Skerritt from his Cabinet post, then his election to be Deputy Speaker, then, just 24 hours later, his   resignation as Deputy Speaker, and his re-appointment to Cabinet.

Let us consider the second, “the Deputy Is Always Essential”, view.

Suppose, in the scenario which we are seeing unfold as the Government play out their hand, that on the day when the National Assembly is scheduled to meet for the all-important Budget Address, the Speaker, God forbid, is unable to attend.

Suppose on that morning, the Order paper shows that before the Budget Address, Parliament wishes to pass a law increasing the number of senators to ,say, six, so that a new Deputy Speaker can be  elected.

But on that morning, the Honourable Curtis Martin, Speaker of the National Assembly, reports sick.

What then?

And worse, yet, especially given the critically serious time constraint in relation to the Budget Debate, suppose that the knowledge of the Speaker’s unavailability only comes to light the night before, or even the morning of, the Budget Debate.

A panicky, hasty hunt for a replacement would ensue, I am sure.

Of course, with a Deputy Speaker in place, there would be no need for panic and haste, as he or she would step up to the plate and carry out the duties of Speaker.

He or she would, for that occasion, fill the office of Speaker. That is what the Deputy is elected for.

And, indeed, that is what being a deputy is all about in any situation: he or she stands in and occupies the office, not as the substantive holder of that particular office, but on a temporary basis, while the substantive holder is unavailable.

And the Deputy must always be easily available.

So to have a Speaker, but no Deputy Speaker, is risky. And it could be dangerously so in terms of Constitutional and governance obligations

Section 32(1) and 32(3) respectively stipulate that a Speaker and then a Deputy Speaker must be elected when the Assembly first meets after an election. Not just a Speaker, but a Deputy Speaker too.

And both, not just one, must be elected before any other business can be transacted.

The subsections therefore clearly give equal importance to the elections to have these two offices filled.

Why then the two and not just the Speaker?

Because, for the purposes of the smooth flow and conduct of the business of the National Assembly, the Constitution wants, ideally, to have the two positions filled at all times, and if there happens to be a vacancy in either office from time to time, the Constitution wants it filled  as soon as practicable or convenient.

Could Section 32(1) and 32(3) give equal importance to the election to the two offices, and Section 32(4) have a contrary intention? Would that make sense?

And is it that in order for Parliament to be properly constituted, it is necessary to elect the Deputy Speaker only when Parliament sits for the first time after an election, but thereafter the Parliament can be properly constituted without a Deputy Speaker?

Does that make sense?

What is transpiring right now before our very eyes is critical to the governance of our nation, and to the development of democracy. It is also being observed in the region and beyond with great interest.

And the government are aware of how critical it is.

That is why, in addition to Attorney General Patrice Nisbett, they have former AG’s Dennis Merchant and Delano Bart and others such as Dr. Henry Browne, Sylvester Anthony, Dr. Kenny Anthony, Tony Astaphan and now, the celebrated Dr. Lloyd Barnett of Jamaica, in the pack.

That kind of array does not come cheaply.

Millions of dollars have been spent in recent times (indeed, many millions of dollars over the past 15 years) on legal services and matters, and, in these times of severe austerity and impending fiscal measures, more dollars will have to be found.

Could it have been avoided, and can it in the future be avoided, by treading on safer legal ground?

Or, on the other hand, maybe the government been treading on solid legal ground and there is no reason to worry. What do you think?

As for me, while I would be happy to see what the best learning on the matters is, I am inclined to the view that the Deputy is always essential.

Meanwhile, I continue to be disappointed at not hearing more voices from the legal community and institutions throughout the region on what is taking place in our midst.

After all, this is the Constitution and the Parliament of our nation. Very little can be more important.