I am most certain that every able minded individual within our society is competent enough to understand the meaning of the word ‘convenient’.
However, according to reliable online dictionary Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the definition is of the aforementioned word convenient is “useful, easy or quick to do; not causing any problem”.
It was just a couple of weeks after the most recent parliamentary elections which took place on Monday 25th January 2010, Parliament was convened. The Douglas administration paced into what is known as the St. Kitts and Nevis Labour Party’s fourth term as leader of government business. One could sense that history was definitely in the making when Senator Hon. Ricky Skerritt was appointed as Deputy Speaker and he resigned no more than 24 hours later.
Minister Skerritt stated that, “Those who understand our constitution know that my resignation as Minster on March 10th and then reappointment 30 hours later was merely a Constitutional maneuver to temporarily fill the deputy speaker position and to plug a gap in our flawed constitution.”
Is this Honorable gentleman serious? His resignation and reappointment was merely a Constitutional manoeuvre to temporarily fill the deputy speaker position and to plug a gap in our flawed Constitution!
Readers please understand my ignorance as you also attempt to answer these questions:
1. Explain to me if the Supreme Law (Constitution) is an instrument that we should use to manipulate the will of Parliament?
2. Since we are to assume that the Supreme Law (Constitution) is flawed does that mean we shouldn’t abide by it?
3. When the Supreme Law (Constitution) did became a tool that we ought to use for our own convenience?
4. Is there any specific provision within the Supreme Law (Constitution) that was written in order to facilitate trickery and deceit?
Although some may find it convenient to question my intelligence I am certainly not as gullible as one may think. I would like to emphatically state that there is no provision or clause in the Constitution that indicates that only lawyers can interpret and comprehend the constitution.
According to Chapter IV, Parliament Part 1 National Assembly, Section 32. Speaker and Deputy Speaker, Provision (3) When the National Assembly first meets after any general election and before it proceeds to the dispatch of any other business except the election of the Speaker the Assembly shall elect a member of the Assembly who is not a member of the Cabinet or a Parliamentary Secretary to be Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, and 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.
If I understand the Constitution correctly, before Parliament proceeds to dispatch of any other business after the resignation of the Deputy Speaker, the Assembly shall, (as soon as convenient), elect another such member to that office. Not 1, 2 or 3 year’s later, but without any delay! (As soon as convenient) should not be read in a vacuum, but must be read and interpreted in the context that echoes the initial sentiment of the provision. It is within that same context that the incumbent government should have made every possible effort to fill that vacancy before proceeding with our government business.
With the failure to abide by the wishes of the Constitution both the Deputy Prime Minister and Senior Minister made it abundantly clear that the House of Assembly was not properly constituted (in other words the house is out of order). The Opposition also shared that same sentiment which continues to echo through the walls and hallways of Parliament. Therefore we the people must not accept such blatant disregard for the Constitution.
In fact, all the Bills that were introduced and passed after the Deputy Speaker resigned should be seen as unlawful in the eyes and conscience of the Federation. This plight which the Federation was strategically forced into by our policy makers has left every citizen thought bound. Several questions arise as we continue to wonder. What if we were forced to pay an unconstitutional 17% VAT? What if we were forced to lose 1200 acres of our lands unconstitutionally? What if SIDF is an illegal Foundation? What if we were forced to pay an unconstitutional 85% electrical increases? And the what if’s can go on forever!
Hence, I believe this to be a matter of such importance that it stands to affect the entire federation. It is critical for us as people to understand that when we allow politicians to manipulate our constitution they will eventually violate our fundamental rights. And if our policy makers no longer grip the conviction to uphold and respect the Constitution, it is time for them to leave that prestigious office!
Thus, I make an urgent call to the relative stakeholders to confront and condemn any action of any government, and individual that merely uses the Constitution to manoeuvre, and plug gaps within our perceived flawed Constitution.
The people must hold Politicians accountable for their actions!
And Politicians must always do what is convenient, not what suits their own convenience!
Or else face fierce resistance………
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
