Dear Editor,
In conversations I had with specialists who know parliamentary and legal affairs, it seems that the Speaker ruled wrongly in the opposition’s request to disallow the Prime Minister, acting in the capacity as President, from sitting in the Assembly. The Speaker referred the matter to the constitutional commission committee. The opposition had challenged the acting President from sitting in the assembly – saying he was squatting there. The Speaker needed to rule whether the acting President could sit in the assembly or not. It was not about amending the constitution. So he ruled erroneously unless he was seeking advice on how he should rule.
The fraudulent Burnham constitution is very specific in articles 96, 103, and 178 in who can act as President and what happens thereafter. The latter states that the acting president must temporarily vacate his or her seat in the assembly with someone replacing him or her until such time that the acting president ceases the duties. Clearly, any functionally literate person would understand this to mean that the acting President cannot sit in the assembly.
Having noted the above, I disagree with the Burnham constitution on this issue. I am of the view that a person (any Cabinet member) acting as President should be allowed to sit in the House to give stability and order to the Assembly since he or she is familiar with the affairs of the House. But this would require constitutional reform to which the coalition is not interested. Also, the fact that the numbers in the House don’t change when a person acts as President renders the issue moot in any side having an advantage or disadvantage. The acting President does not lessen the numbers of the coalition in Parliament if he leaves the House. According to the fraudulent Burnham constitution, a person from the parliamentary list of the ruling coalition (of May 2015) could be appointed to temporarily fill the seat vacated by the acting President. And even if a vacancy is not filled, there will be a 32-32 tie assuming no one deviates from the vote. And by the way, 32 is not a majority or passage of bill as the Speaker once declared two years ago. A vote of 32-32 is maintenance of the status quo. The Speaker cannot vote; the fraudulent Burnham constitution is clear on that point.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
