BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – FORMER Minister of Government Dwyer Astaphan said the Speaker of the National Assembly was justified in taking the action he did regarding the Opposition’s Notice of Motion of No Confidence against him. He said however, that had he been in his position, he would have done one thing differently.
Speaker the Hon. Michael Perkins – during Friday’s (Jan. 20) sitting ruled that the Notice of Motion was out of order and not properly constituted. And he therefore dismissed it.
The Members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were evidently displeased with the Speaker’s decision and stormed out of the Parliament. But not before hurling a number of, as has been expressed by some, unparliamentary statements at the Speaker.
Astaphan indicated to this publication that the Speaker was not debating the Motion as the Opposition has suggested.
“And he is within his authority to make a ruling on the propriety or the lack thereof of a motion. I believe the Speaker wants to do the right thing and I believe the Deputy Speaker, I’m sure, would have been engaged in the discussion as somebody who is new to the Parliament. And I also want to believe that the Speaker would have consulted with appropriate counsel - both from the Parliamentary knowledge and experience area and from the legal area.
“As the Speaker said, if the Speaker is of the opinion that a notice of Motion infringes the provisions of any of the Standing Orders, or is in any other way out of order, the Speaker may direct that the Member concerned be informed that the Notice is out of order or the Speaker may direct that the Notice be entered into the Order Book with such alterations as the Speaker might direct….”
There was one aspect of the Speaker’s actions however, that Astaphan said he would have done differently had he been in the Speaker’s shoes.
“I think the Speaker had a right to do what he did in terms of outlining his explanation. The Opposition Members were of the view that he, in fact, was debating the Motion himself and not allowing them the opportunity to debate. My take on it was that he was giving his reasons for not entertaining the Motion and for ruling it out of order.
“…Again for me, and again the greatest of respect for the Speaker who I think means well, that is something that could have been discussed between the Office of the Speaker and the Member of Parliament involved. And I think in that conversation the Speaker could have taken the opportunity to outline some of his concerns with the content insofar as imputing wrong motives to a Member, to the Speaker, which he says the Notice is guilty of, and some other things which he ruled on with regard to the Rules…”
