Your Eyewitness is more than a tad agitated to learn from the eminent Clerk of our National Assembly that the words “corrupt” and “corruption” can’t be used in that hallowed chamber.
Jeez! Forget the Opposition member who questioned the Honorable Speaker’s disallowing of the word, but hasn’t the spokesman for the governing PPP – the VP of the country – been pronouncing on corruption and the likelihood of it occurring in a country such as ours; which has just come into BIG money, and is spending it like Fairy Godfather on our long-poverty -stricken citizenry?? Is he not allowed to explain in Parliament what steps his administration is taking to address this threat, which can torpedo that administration’s developmental programme??
To justify his stance, the Clerk pointed specifically to the part on “Parliamentary Language” from the tome “Erskine May Parliamentary Practice”. This is the Bible on the subject – coming out of the custom and practice of our English “Mother of Parliament” at Westminster.
Back in the early days of parliamentary functioning in England, a member would routinely challenge another member to a duel if that first mentioned member felt dishonoured by the other member’s speech. You could imagine the strain put on the National Exchequer – not to mention budding politicians – if MPs’ lives were snuffed out weekly!! So, the Speaker of the House of Commons started the custom of removing the offending words from the written proceedings; and in 1873, the constitutional theorist Erskine May started recording words and expressions the Speaker considered “unparliamentary” – in violation of the rules of politeness in the House of Commons Chamber. Later editions of the book laid down the principle of parliamentary language to enforce the custom. In our case, the Clerk referred to pg 57 of the 19th Edition of the book, and pointed out that some of the proscribed expressions are ‘dog,’ ‘hooligan,’ ‘corrupt,’ and ‘corruption’ – so, voila!!
Now, part of the 19th edition is from 1976, which for sure makes the prohibited words incomplete. The text notes that the prohibited words had to’ve been used against present MPs!! Since the words are judged CONTEXTUALLY, codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical. In his judgement, the Speaker would direct an MP who used unparliamentary language to withdraw the comment. Refusal to withdraw a comment might lead to an MP being disciplined; for example: the Speaker could ‘name’ the Member. So, it’s not a case of words forbidding debate on them; it would be patently absurd to assert that our eminent MPs couldn’t debate a motion on, say, stray dogs in our streets!!
In the case under consideration, all that’s forbidden is to accuse a fellow MP of being “corrupt” or engaged in “corruption”. According to Erskine May, former MPs are fair game!!
…trial
Well, at long last, we’re seeing a (dim) light at the end of the elections-rigging tunnel. Twas almost five years ago when Reg 4 RO, Clairmont Mingo, did his thing with spreadsheets and bedsheets on the 2020 General Elections! It’s three-plus years since he, Gecom CEO Lowenfield; Dep CEO Myers; former APNU+AFC Minister and PNC Chair, Volda Lawrence; PNC activist Carol Smith-Joseph and several GECOM Secretariat employees were charged with trying to rig the elections by declaring a false account of votes for the said elections.
So, after one judicial (political?) hurdle or other, the case is finally gonna proceed in front of the Acting Chief Magistrate, before whom it’s now found itself!! She resolved one of the disputes that has held the case in limbo – that it will be tried “summarily” before a magistrate, rather than “indictably” in the High Court in front of a jury. That would’ve needed a preliminary hearing that could’ve opened up all the old can of worms.
Let justice be done, even if the heavens fall!!
