
On 14th May, 2020, at a meeting of the House of Representatives and a packed Order Paper, the Leader of the Opposition, Jamale Pringle, decided to storm out of Parliament,
after not being allowed to make a Personal Explanation on a matter that he was not allowed to as he was and would be in violation of the Parliamentary Procedure governing the subject.
My main purpose is not to enter into any argument or debate with the Honourable Member, more so since I am presently considering what action should be taken against him, prior to and during the next Sitting of the House. What I will do is to point out to fair minded people, both here and abroad of the procedure and rules governing the granting or refusal of leave to a Member to make a personal explanation at a sitting, and in doing so I will support my position by referring readers to the Parliamentary Procedure and learning on
which I relied.
I am also guided by the watchword of Watt, Dorsette, Hewlett Law, the Law Firm that I head and am proud to be a part of, which reads thus: “Argumentum ab auctoritate fortissimum est in lege” which translates to English reads: “Argument by authority is strongest in Law”.
The legal learning in respect of Personal Explanations by Members is to be found in a number of Parliamentary texts two of which are:
1) Erskine May Parliamentary Practice 24th Edition 2011. This book deals with the Law, Privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament and is described as “Erskine May’s Treatise
on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament”.
2) House of Commons Procedure and Practice Second Edition 2009, which lays out the procedure in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Canada. To place this in context, Mr. Pringle, M.P., rose speaking to make a personal explanation, he stated the matter on which he intended to speak, which was to explain to the House and the World, his reason for
refusing to accept an invitation to join the Prime Minister’s Economic Recovery Committee, and to rebut the Prime Minister’s statement that he was shirking ‘his constitutional responsibilities’.
I declined to allow him to do so for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Member is not
entitled to be allowed to speak, simply because “the people voted for him’ and
“his people wants him to speak to these things”. The following learning from Erskine May is reproduced for the public’s education under the reading “Personal Statement pg. 376”.
“The House is usually indulgent with regard to personal statements, and will permit personal explanation to be made without any question being before the House provided that the SPEAKER HAS BEEN INFORMED OF WHAT THE MEMBER PROPOSES TO SAY AND HAS GIVEN LEAVE. Because the practice of the House is not to permit such statements
to be subject to intervention or debate, the precise contents of the proposed statement are submitted IN ADVANCE to the Speaker to ensure that they are appropriate. The indulgence
of a personal statement is GRANTED WITH CAUTION since it may lead to irregular debates.
In the Ottawa Parliament

Personal Explanations is explained as follows: pg. 631 “The Chair may occasionally grant leave to a member to explain a matter of a personal nature although there is no question before the House. Such occasions are not meant to be used for general debate and Members have been cautioned to confine their remarks to the point they wish to make.
When granted, they have been used by Members notably TO ANNOUNCE A RESIGNATION, OR TO EXPLAIN CHANGES IN PARTY AFFILIATION.”
Note well, the narrow nature of a personal statement. In this instance, the Member
simply attempted to make a statement and a controversial one at that without informing the Speaker and providing me with the contents of the statement and getting my permission, and even if I was minded to overlook that and grant permission there and then, the matter in which he wished to speak was well outside the parameters of what was
permissible and would certainly have led to “unnecessary debate”. The Member seemed to have accepted the ruling of the Speaker and took his seat.
Under Public Business, and after the Hon. Prime Minister had moved the Motion for debate on the extension of the State of Emergency, the Hon. Member rose, I thought to debate the
Motion instead however, he immediately commenced to raise the issue which I had ruled on before and that he was not entitled to do under the Standing Orders or Parliamentary Procedure. In this regard, I refer to Standing Order 37(1): “Debate upon any Motion, Bill or Amendments, SHALL BE RELEVANT TO SUCH MOTION, BILL OR AMENDMENT except in the case of a Motion for the adjournment of the House.”

Clearly in attempting to make a political statement during his debate on the
Motion, the Member was clearly in violation of the above cited Standing Order
and the Speaker was therefore perfectly correct to prevent him from so doing.
During my attempt to explain and guide the Member to his breach of the Standing Order, I was subject to a torrent of abuse and insults.
The Member proceeded to yell at the Chair and to persistently accuse me of being biased and would not cease his rant until I stood. At this time I warned the Member that he should control himself and I demanded that he apologize failing which I would take certain action.
He chose to leave and stormed out of the Chambers without acknowledging the Speaker contrary to Standing Orders 40(a). It cannot be denied that the Hon. Member’s actions and behavior amounted to grossly disorderly conduct, during which time he inter
alia: a) Accused the Chair of being biased and continually “shutting him down”
to prevent criticism of the Government side and; b) Did so by using disorderly and unparliamentary expressions and; c) Imputing improper Motives to a Member of
Parliament to the Speaker contrary to Standing Order 36 (3) and 36 (5).
While preparing this statement for distribution, my attention was drawn to an article in AntiguaNewsroom. com under the heading “UPP STANDS BEHIND MP JAMALE PRINGLE’S
POSITION AND DECISION”. The article consists of and appears to be written in support of Jamale Pringle and commence thus: “The Political Leader, Executive Committee and the
Woman’s Forum placed on record their support for the positions expressed and the decision taken in the Parliament on May 14th, 2020, by the Hon. Jamale Pringle, Member for All Saints East and Saint Luke…. We agree that MP Pringle acted within his rights as a Member of the House in his attempt to register by way of Hansard, his explanation for declining a position on the Cabinet’s Economic Recovery Committee.”
It then proceeds to refer to Standing Orders 6(5) and 13(1) which are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. It goes on to state certain positions which have no basis
in Parliamentary practice and which have been stated to mislead the UPP and
Opposition supporters there are however certain statements which I must address.
It is important at this point to address Standing Order 20 which specifically deals
with Personal Explanations.
This Standing Order states and I quote: “WITH THE LEAVE OF THE SPEAKER A MEMBER MAY make a personal explanation at the time appointed under Standing Order 13(Order of Business) although there is no question before the House. BUT NO CONTROVERSIAL MATTER MAY BE BROUGHT FORWARD NOR ANY DEBATE ARRIVE UPON THE EXPLANATION.”
(Emphasis supplied) Can any reasonably, sane, and intelligent person, doubt
that the Member’s explanation was in respect of a current, hot political issue and highly controversial at that.
Further, if this Member was permitted to give his explanation which concerned the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister not seek to reply and there you would have the very
debate which the Standing Order seeks to prevent. This is just one of the several
reasons which clearly mitigated against granting leave to MP Pringle and was only
one of the several Standing Orders that he wished to ride rough shod over.
The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives were passed in 1967, 53 years ago, it is old, outdated, and is contained in a small booklet of 45 pages and 78 Standing Orders,
the idea that all of the laws, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament is to be
found in this outdated booklet is ludicrous. Indeed, it is to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice to which Speakers and Parliamentarians must refer. The Standing Orders set out the bare rules, Erskine May fleshes them out and indicates how they have been and are to
be interpreted by Speakers and Parliamentarians. It is Erskine May that is known
worldwide as the Parliamentary Bible, NOT the Standing Order. Incidentally, the very idea that a Speakeror Member cannot refer to Erskine May, the supreme
reference for guidance and precedent, and put forward to explain away Mr. Pringle’s behaviour can only be described as a Parliamentary heresy .
Before departing this subject, I feel obliged to comment on two final matters as
contained in the subject at hand. The writer maintains that the “Platform of Personal Explanations has been used many times, usually by Members of the Opposition
to address matters relevant to their tenure” and that the Hon. Asot Michael, “utilized
this platform to report on his health following his return from major surgery.” I do
accept MP Michael spoke to a non-political issue, i.e. his health with this Speaker’s permission, I am sure that all reasonable persons can decipher the difference between both statements. If and when Members of the Opposition have frequently used Personal Explanations in the past, it has NEVER been during my Speakership and if during the term
of the former Speaker, was allowed willy nilly by her, would explain her failure to utilize Erskine May as a reference and not play it by ear, as was her practice during her tenure. Speaker Isaac has continually criticized this Speaker for not referring to Members by the
names of the Constituencies for which they have been elected, and she “points to Standing Order 36(4), once again the former Speaker is stuck in the past, and persistently fails and/or refuses to refer to Erskine May to gleam the modern interpretation of this ancient custom.
In this regard, I refer to Erskine May 24th Ed., 2001, page 444 which states:
“In order to guard against all appearance of personality in debate, no Member should refer to another by name. Each Member must be distinguished by the OFFICE HE HOLDS, by the
place he represents, OR BY OTHER DESGINATIONS as … or when speaking of a Member of the same Party, “my right Honourable friend the Member for…”I also refer to House of
Commons, “Procedure and Practice” 2nd Ed., 2009 which states: “During debate, Members
do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or Constituency name… A Minister is referred to by the Portfolio he or she holds. The two main Party Leaders are generally referred to as the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition and other Party Leaders are identified as the Leader of their respective Parties.” It is abundantly clear that my manner of referring to Members is more modern, while the former Speaker continues to wallow in the past blissfully unaware that
modern Parliamentary Practice and usage is not stuck in 1967 with our outdatedStanding Orders.
Finally, I take note of the support that MP Pringle is getting from his Political Leader, Mr. Harold Lovell and former Prime Minister, Baldwin Spencer. Harold Lovell says, “it took tremendous courage to state his case (I ask what case?), also PM Spencer commends
Mr. Pringle “for his stance and encourages him to continue fighting in the interest of those he represents”. I can state without fear of contradiction that in all their long terms in Parliament, no one has ever heard either of these two politicians behave
in the obnoxious and grossly disrespectful manner as this Member.
I take due note of Mr. Harold Lovell and former Prime Minister’s fulsome praise
in respect of MP Pringle’s childish, and grossly disorderly behaviour in the House of Representatives, or to his gross disrespect to the Chair. It should be noted that during their long period of Membership in the House, neither of these two gentlemen have been known
to behave in the manner that they now feel obliged to condone. I am particularly
saddened at Mr. Spencer’s intervention. In conclusion, I wish to make it clear that my intention by way of this Statement is to conclusively show by citing the relevant Standing Order and Parliamentary Authority which grounded my decision, and in addition to inform and educate the Body Politic as to the relevant Standing Order and Parliamentary Practice
which would have guided any Speaker in these Circumstances. I am not so naive as to think that I will be able to convince the intellectually dishonest leadership
of the Untied Progressive
Party, their political sycophants or those radio hosts
who are too mentally lazy
to research matters of this
sort and would rather repeat
and regurgitate whatever
emanates from the political
players of the party that they
so fervently support.
The Honourable Jamale Pringle intemperate and
childish outburst was far
more egregious than that of
those who have been sanctioned by former presiding
officers Ms. Giselle Isaac
and Ms. Hazlyn Francis
and was far worse than that
of former MP and Deputy
Prime Minister Wilmoth
Daniel and once encouraged is likely to repeat his
disgraceful performance. It
must be noted that MP Pringle was in breach of at least
three Standing Orders, and
it is difficult to understand
how any speaker would be
expected to exercise one’s
discretion in the face of serial breaches of the Standing Orders and proper Parliamentary Practices and
usage. Clearly, the present
Parliament must of necessity take note and ponder
whether this matter is simply to be allowed to die a
natural death. The ball is
in the House of Representatives’ court.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Dear Jerry, excuse me, Sir Jerry. Methinks you doth protest too much. This long, drawn out treatise you wrote confirms that. If you are the one who is right, why do you look so much on the defensive to the point where you are now wondering whether Pringle will take action against you? How things have turned around. Right now, even the smallest child saying you should have allowed him to speak. Here’s why. You let your boy, the HONORABLE PRIME MINISTER, as you like to refer to him, speak on personal issues. You let Asot speak on personal issues. Why not Pringle? When you interrupted him, you had already made up your mind he was going to say something that was long. You were ready and set waiting for him. Jerry, Sir Jerry, you’re too bias. We on the outside see that you’re even more bias than the boys on the other side. Is it that you fraid Gaston so, or you hate Baldwin more? Those emotions are causing you to make many mistakes in the house.
You talk about submitting IN ADVANCE (your words) the contents of what would be said. I did not notice you said anywhere that the submission should be IN WRITING.
Lastly, look at Grenada. The government won all the seats. What did they do? They set up an opposition because they know that an opposition is best for any democracy. You and your boys are hoping that the opposition doesn’t win one single seat next time. Now how dumb is that?
Jerry, you are letting your personal feelings get the better of you. I think you are better than that, but you are consumed with too much bile against the UPP. Why? That is for another post. Either let it go, or if you can’t, leave. You may do yourself irreparable damage.
Gerald Watt go rest your old self
What a nasty mouth you have there. Pray that, with health and strength, you are able to live as long as Sir Gerald. This the the problem with some of you “young people”, you refer to others as old, not realising that it is a blessing to live long. I trust that when you get old, dawg nah piss pon you.
A very solid explanation by Q.C. Sir Gerald Watt. For the Charlesworth Tabors, Giselle Issacs, Harold Lovells, Justin Simons, and Rawlston Pompeys of this world, I hope you learn a thing or two from the sources quoted in the Speaker’s lucid explanation.
It is unfortunate that several attempts have been made to justify the odious, pernicious, mendacious, and puerile display by Pringle. Whether you support him or not, it is to be understood that Parliament has rules, and simply because one is elected does not give one the right to do as one pleases.
I trust that no young person is led to emulate that kind of disrespect for persons in authority. It was the great poet Alexander Pope who quipped, “Order is heaven’s first law.”
The persons you have mentioned above rather play political games then to educate people honestly. It is sad but such if live in Antigua and Barbuda. And as you say I also do hope no young aspiring person who wants to become a Parliamentarian would take this behavior as an example.
LEAVE RAWLSTON POMPEY OUT ‘ AH DAT’
Though he believes he was ‘…Wrong Like Hell,’ and openly and boldly writes it in a commentary, one may see that ‘…Sir Gerald Owen Anderson Watt KCN, QC never fired a shot at Rawlston Pompey.’
Is ‘Sir Gerald a mind reader?
Rawlston Pompey stuck to the ‘…Rules of Order’ as contained in the ‘Standing Orders of the House of Representatives’ of Antigua and Barbuda.’
GROSSLY NEGLIGENT
If anything, ‘Sir Gerald’ may have been ‘…Grossly Negligent’ not applying the appropriate ‘Standing Orders.’
Citing them now might be likened to the ‘…horse owner who closes the stable after the darn wild horse had bolted.
BACK-FOOT KICK
Better mind a ‘…Back-Foot Kick’ the next time he allows the darn horse to bolt.
To the;
(i) …Simpletons;
(ii) …Hangers-on;
(iii) …Choir and supper singers; and
(iv) ‘…Sycophants,’ please leave ‘Rawlston Pompey Out Ah Dat.’
Never sucked up to any politician, past or present. No Sah!
Free man; …Free thoughts.
Expressed only for enlightenment.
Even if yuh have been screwing up yuh darn face, ‘ read the commentary again, ‘SIR GERALD -WRONG LIKE HELL.’
Why do you have to make it about you, Mr Pompey? Can’t you write something without referring to yourself in the third person? Stop craving the spotlight so much.
And, don’t think that we have forgotten the “unseen” missing documents that came out on the flat bed truck.
It really is not a good thing when the Speaker of the House attacks an entire political party and calls its members intellectually dishonest and political sycophants. How can he then say he is not biased against that very party? Just saying…..
Perhaps it would require an article by me to show that the Speaker n his lengthy explanation is still wrong to have refus ed to grant permission to Jamale Pringle to make a personal explanation. I will not get into that again now. I will just simply point out how the Speaker’s argument is flawed. The Standing Orders (SO) are the rules that govern the conduct of Parliament. Section 57 (1) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda gives Parliament the power to make rules to regulate its own conduct. That point is irrefutable. It is the SO that should be followed then and not Erskine May. It is the SO that is the law. Erskine May is persuasive and instructive and is only used to provide guidance when there SO is unclear or is silent on a particular issue. The Speaker says that the SO was passed in 1967 and is therefore outdated. Erskine May was written in 1844. So that point by the Speaker is flawed. With respect to personal explanations there is really no major debate as such. In the case in point, Jamale Pringle would make his personal explanation and because it is about a statement the Prime Minster made, the Prime Minister would get an opportunity to respond if he wishes and that would be the end of the so-called debate. No other Member would be allowed to speak. I believe I might do an article in response to the Speaker to show how incorrect his statement is. Anyway, enough for now.
Well! Well! Here comes the ALP eighteen candidate. “To the hell with the constitution man” telling people of their childish behavior. Satan trying to correct sin…….wow! Too much ras really in Antigua & Barbuda cartoon parliament. My advise to the five minute bathroom brake man, your time is up stop trying to resurrect your dead pass. By the way ANR Pringle was given an ultimatum by the eighteen canididate apologize or leave Pringle chose to leave. Top dawg let me recommend to you something to please your eighteen candidate so his proud name continues, name 1735 after him. He is serving you well top dawg, please award him time is running out. Give him his flowers while he is alive. To hell with the constitution.
Mr Speaker on of our most intellectual legal minds….well done! If one should ask a prisoner if they should be granted more time on the outside……What answer would one expect? Those who encourage the behavior of the MP is the same reason why they approve remunerations for themselves and others from government agencies without going through proper channels. You put a PIG in a HOUSE doesn’t make IT a leader. For those attorneys that blog on this medium some or all may have retired because any active practicing attorney that have so much time on hand really says a lot about their knowledge, interpretation of the law and their work load.
Me ah wonder what kinda of attorney he be. Like don’t he have some client to defend in court? He always here clapping back at anyone who view he don’t agree with.
Well done Sir Gerald Watts Q C . I do hope that Tabor , Pompey ,Gisel Isaac , Pompey et Al can see how Someone explain a situation for Everyone to understand. Tabor , Gisel , Pompey ,Simon write article with a lot of words without proper outline. I do hope that You Guys learn from this WONDERFUL article by Sir Gerald Watts QC. Well done
Tabor why You keep telling Pringle that He was correct to DISRESPECT the Speaker ? PLEASE STOP IT. You are encouraging a Person to do the wrong thing ?????? Is this the way you perform in your Law practice ????
COME ON MAN . I am sick and tired of your comments. Please stop this NONSENSE.
He keeps missing that point. He only wants to say that the speaker was wrong to deny Jamal to speak. Ok lets say that is so. Does that then gives Jamal Pringle to disrespect the house and the speaker. And they don’t understand that these things are broadcasted over the world to see how we behave in our parliament. I guess they want us to be seen as a ‘Banana Republic”. It would make more sense if Pringle had after the Parliament go on the radio and read his statement and say what he has to say.
Two wrongs never make a right
You Guys from the UPP REGIME keep MISINTERPRETING the ERSKING MAY Parliamentary procedure. I know You Guys know better but You are just playing POLITICS . Jamale should be suspended for 6 months. You remember D.Gisel Isaac suspended Gaston Browne for 6 months. UPP should be helping Jamale but instead you are sending the wrong message to Jamale. I guess He would walk out of Parliament next time the Speaker refuse to hear Him . That would quite in order for the TABOR,GISEL,POMPEY, SIMON.WHAT A SHAME.!!!!
@KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOUR
Here goes Knight with His STUPIDITY. I am quite sure that Knight did not read Sir Gerald Watts article in its entirety . As usual Knight would criticize anything to do with ABLP. Knight you should leave your comments for your STUPID Radio Program where your regular five Persons call in each night. Sir Gerald Explained the situation for everyone to understand . I believe that Jamale should be suspended for at 6 months for DISRESPECTING the Speaker. You Guys have now EMBOLDEN Jamale for doing the WRONG thing. As Tanny Rose said I guess Knight is working for His SENATE seat. Knight …We all know that you are UPP Cheer Leader but you are hiding under the BUSHELLS. You are sinking for your supper and looking for HANDOUT.Knight You must practice what you preach. NOT NICE
KNIGHT…..D.Gisel Isaac served the UPP well as Speaker. You have short convenient memory.
Well said Sir Gerald, we now see based on a logical argument, the difference between a properly trained legal mind who has served with distinction vs someone (Tabor) who has comprehension problems (perhaps on purpose) and needs attention. He could not comprehend that the statement re usual indulgence applied only to situation where the speaker had given leave and referred to MP’s. Poor C. Tabor, misses even the basics, hence his conclusions are deeply flawed. Would recommend further schooling, but suspect it would be wasted. Truly to late, to train the figurative old dog.
“Well said Sir Gerald”…really, tenman? You don’t see or perhaps want to see the above legalese waffling or Shakespeare’s ‘Methinks thou dost protest too much’ along with and not least of all the Latin quote etc. etc.etc. as being just a tad on the overkill/eccentric side with regard to statements? IMO there is no necessity for all this vindictive and hurling insults crap. They all run their mouths in Parliament and Mr. Pringle should have been allowed to do the same with perhaps a time limit.
All those lines yet no mention of Chinese (your passion). Found this article no longer but yet clearer than Pompey’s. Jeb much of what he stated, I posted to the article written by the on paper only lawyer, who lacks comprehension skills. Find it hard to believe Tabor was UWI trained. I have had experience of having to sit where Watt does,in terms of facilitating debates, hence its easy to understand where he coming from.In the past I have had to refer to the said book Watt mentioned. Pringle would have been better served by going back Observer media and repeating again his personal explanation (He already did it days before parliament). There was even an article in ANR regarding his response, Brethren I foresee some more Chinese investments coming or way. Sadly the US has lost its way and it will take their new Prez Biden awhile to clean things up (yes I am making a prediction)
Tenman: Could you predict the Powerball Numbers for the next drawing.
RUPERT MANN I am very disappointed in you because you know i have said that Jamale should not have responded to the Speaker in the way he did on the second occasion when he rose to speak on the resolution to extend the state of emergency. He should have been more tempered and diplomatic in his response. What more do you want to hear from me. I always try to be objective, more than I can say for all of the anonymous commentators on Antigua News Room. My position is that the Speaker was wrong to refuse permission to Pringle to make a personal explanation. Even the Speaker’s lengthy justification for his behaviour is also wrong. He has said that the Standing Orders are outdated because they were passed in 1967, however Erskine May that was written in 1844 is not outdated. The point is however it is the Standing Orders that guide Parliamentary conduct. Section 57 (1) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda the power to regulate its own conduct. The Standing Orders are therefore the law and not Etskine May. Erskine May is persuasive and instructive and is only used as a guide when the Standing Orders are unclear or silent on a particular point. The Speaker is therefore wrong in his view of the Standing Orders vis-a-vis Erskine May. The Standing Orders are the law. Are we to say to hell with the Standard Orders and also the Constitution that mandated them. Come on Sir Gerald, you are a QC state the law correctly and stop misleading the people.
You are “disappointed” in Rupert Mann, but not at the quality of discourse and leadership displayed by Jamale Jamal Pringle? Interesting. Have you offered to help him improve his reasoning and grammar skills? I’m sure those are 2 very important skills that you as an attorney possess. Why not pay it forward and help the young, intellectually-struggling black brother out?
Mr. Tabor if you agree that the conduct from Jamal was unacceptable than any other attempt to lay blame at the speaker is pointless. Because even after the Speaker have quoted what guided his decision. Quoting to you all the relevant parliamentary procedure. Question was Jamal not to get approval beforehand from the speaker to make a personal explanation. And if so than the speaker has every right to deny him to speak. Does Jamal doesn’t know this simple procedure? First seek approval to speak on the matter. So he can just stand up and speak as he like and be heard. if so you do need a Speaker. Please stop politicking you are a well educated man. So let others learn from you. Especially Pringle. He needs lots of help. And the UPP is not keen or willing to help him understand Parliamentary procedures. And he himself was told on many times by the speaker in the past to get a copy of the SO or Earkine May. I tell you when I first had become Chair of a Board I had to read a lot about how to chair a meeting. I was not taught about it. I had to do my research and it was hard in the beginning but it got better overtime. Now its like normal for me.
So if I take what Gerry Watts said at face value, because our standing orders are old and outdated, it should be ignored?
Will the good gentleman also disregard all those old outdated law from colonial days, still on our law book because they are old? I think he is not as smart as he thinks.
Cool Ruler you missed this part (I am ignoring Tabor because he lacks comprehension skills):
“This Standing Order states and I quote: “WITH THE LEAVE OF THE SPEAKER A MEMBER MAY make a personal explanation at the time appointed under Standing Order 13(Order of Business) although there is no question before the House. BUT NO CONTROVERSIAL MATTER MAY BE BROUGHT FORWARD NOR ANY DEBATE ARRIVE UPON THE EXPLANATION.”
(Emphasis supplied) Can any reasonably, sane, and intelligent person, doubt
that the Member’s explanation was in respect of a current, hot political issue and highly controversial at that.
Further, if this Member was permitted to give his explanation which concerned the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister not seek to reply and there you would have the very
debate which the Standing Order seeks to prevent. This is just one of the several
reasons which clearly mitigated against granting leave to MP Pringle and was only
one of the several Standing Orders that he wished to ride rough shod over.”
Point is the standing order itself prevented him from making what would be deemed a controversial statement as part of personal explanation. Watt has been working for years to modernize the standing orders. Is this news to you?
Looking on from the outside, Its amazing to see and listen to the rambling that is taking place between the supporters of both political sides, debating who is right or who is wrong in reference to what transpired in parliament several days ago between Mr. Watts, The Speaker of Parliament & Mr. Pringle, The Leader of the opposition….
Of course, in my view, credence can be given to both sides of the argument. However, I think it is a bit disappointed to see how persons are overlooking the fact, what impact this debate could have on the youths of our population who are aspiring to become astute politicians….
From the debate, it is obvious that the percieved wrongs of both individuals are highlighted & condoned and moreso that of the Leader of the opposition Mr. Pringle…..
Now, according to this article written by the speaker of the house, in reference to the standing orders and the leverage that he can proceed with, clearly Mr. Pringle’s mannerism and his statements uttered in parliament on the said day were very disrespectful to the Speaker & his parliamentary colleagues, regardless, whether or not he thought that the speaker treated him with injustice. Like any head of any organisation, the Speaker automatically commands respect from ALL the parliamentarians who are deemed to be honourable…. Certainly, one may not agree with some things said or decisions made by the Speaker. But, it does not give anyone on either side of the political divide, the right to speak or act in a disrespectful manner to the speaker. Ofcourse Mr. Pringle is only human and perhaps his emotions got the best of him. In my view, Mr. Pringle owes the nation an apology and moreso, us the young people… His actions were definitely uncalled for.
Sad to say that his actions has now placed him more in the spot light on the Speaker’s future agenda. In addition his political colleagues are also pushing him deeper into the political turmoil.
Now Mr. Pringle, now will be the perfect time to show us all that the title ” Honourable ” is not a title affixed to you like a rubber stamp but its a title that you are certainly well deserving of.
Reply
COOL RULER go to the head of the class. You have hit the nail right on the head. Our Parliament is governed by its Standing Orders. Sir Gerald said that they are outdated because they were passed in 1967. Outdated or not they are the rules that regulate the conduct in Parliament. Erskine May that he refers to was written in 1844. Tell me which is more outdated our Standing Orders or Erskine May. Our Standing Orders are the law. We used Erskine May as a guide if the Standing Order is unclear or silent on an issue because it is persuasive and instructive. We inherited it from our colonial British past. The point that the Speaker as a trained lawyer and QC seems to forget is that it is the Standing Orders that govern our Parliament. Section 57 (1) of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make orders to regulate its conduct. What is the Speaker now willing to say to hell with Standing Orders and the Constitution. I repeat again that the Speaker was wrong to decline permission to Jamale Pringle to give a personal explanation. Nothing the Speaker has written in his response can change that, irrespective of all the plaudits he is getting from his supporters in this forum. By the way, whether we rely on our Standing Orders or Erskine May he was wrong.
TENMAN just to educate you despite your great powers of comprehension. There are the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and there are the Erskine May rules. The Standing Orders are applicable in our Parliament not Erskine May. However, the Speaker seems to be mixing up both and applying both at the same time like a legal pepperpot. Only our Standing Orders are applicable. Erskine May is an authoritative text and is only looked at for guidance when the Standing Orders are unclear or silent on an issue. For example, while Erskine May allows a Member who is the subject of a personal explanation to respond, our Standing Orders do not allow for a response so there would be no debate. The Speaker needs to decide what Rules to use when he is presiding over Parliament. Legally, he can only use the Standing Orders.
………….. It looks as if you cannot multitask. Please learn to do more than one think at the same time. Like you I am just expressing my views. However, many times I observe that your views don’t make much sense.
Who the cap fit mek them wear it. Did I call your name? Are you guilty? A guily conscious needs no accuser!
Don’t know why you people goving that lawyer Charlesworth Tabor so much attention, this man thinks he knows all because he is a lawyer. He acts as if he knows the law inside out. While he may know the law of man he does not know the Law of God and one day he will reap all that karma he has racked up. ✌🏾
…………. You are making me beginning to think you are retarded. I am not guilty of anything other than challenging the nonsense that many of you ALP sychophants and apologists post here.
Oh so you resort to name calling now Lawyer Tabor? Is that your conscious bothering you? And again I don’t support ALP and even if I did it is my right to support whatever political party I chose. You Lawyer Tabor don’t like to be called out. You are like a spolied child my way or the highway. But carry on please cause it clear you not making it as a lawyer so why not try politics. Furthermore I never called your name in my first comment but again in the words of the late great Bob Marley “who de cap fit mek them wear it” good night sir.
I am SICK and TIRED reading Mr. Pompey and Mr. Tabor narratives. You Guys make me SICK. I am TOTALLY disappointed in Mr. Pompey for telling the People of Antigua and Barbuda that Jamale Pringle did nothing wrong . Tabor I expect nothing better from You. Pompey and Tabor the People of Antigua lost respect for You Guys. UPP cannot do any thing WRONG ?????. You Guys must be Fair.
SICK AND TIRED?
Then you might wish to do these two things;
(i) …Consult a physician;and
(ii) …Go to sleep.’
Most certainly, you would wake up ‘…Revived and refreshed.’
Not really into what you might be thinking, and hides not under ‘pseudonyms’ to offer an honest comment.
Like your spirit, though.
Keep it up my friend. May the Good Lord bless you.
Gerald Watt,time for you to go.Go now,please.You should be out there relaxing and enjoying the fruits of your hard labor.Not still in the fray,looking for a few dollars.You cannot take it with you in the BOX.You have a Law Firm that bears your name.Why do you need this position as Speaker of the House.Is it for prestige.Is it for power.It cannot be for money?
………….. I asked before if you are retarded. I do not hide behind aliases in this medium. I used my name. Can you tell me who is the other lawyer that put regular posts in this medium? That being the case Mr. Wiseguy you did not have to call my name. Your implication clearly referred to me so I responded. Do you have a problem with that? Isn’t that what the other commenters like TENMAN, All Around, Karma is a etc. And by the way, I am not responding be cause of my conscious as you say. Anyway, when you respond the word is conscience.
It really irks you huh Tabor. My comment got under your skin that much? That you going on and on? I did not mention your name in my first comment. Again you act like a spoiled child when you cant get your way you throw a thoussnd tantrums. Now unlike you I have work to do. I’m not lawyer and no scholar but I am a decent law abiding citizen who avoids trouble because unlike you sir, I don’t have friends in high places nor do I mingle with politicians or wannabe politicians to get me out of it.
Brethren how come you got so hot and bothered? Its like your conscience now bothering you. Its finally gotten home to you that you lack proper comprehension skills? Its not you the other day who made clear you know who I am? I am not surprised since your political leader (a family friend) shouts my alias every time he sees me in public. Tabor relax, drink some red wine, it not only calms the nerves but can also help you think logically (since you are more relaxed). One day soon we must share a drink
Wait now you guys (Tenman, All Around, From the Sideline, Karma is a, Rupert Mann, ………… etc,) are being challenged in this medium you all cannot take it. Let us have a civil exchange of ideas and stop resorting to cussing and attacking the messenger instead of the message. Our discussion would be more meaningful. It would be great also if all of you stop using aliases and sobriquets and man up with your names.
…………. Nothing you can say irks me. I like the exchange of ideas on this medium but again most of you just try to ignore the message and try to distract by attacking the messenger. For example, I said Sir Gerald Watt was wrong to refuse permission to the Leader of the Opposition to make a personal explanation. Put forward arguments to challenge my position. I neither need politicians or wannabe politicians in my life. I have done well in life so far on my own accord. Thank God. I hope you can say the same.
It is quite obvious you have a lot of time on your hands Tabor. For you to keep refreshing the page just to see who replies to you. But then again according to the top cop crime has gone done due to the lockdown so I understand why you turing from lawyer to political troll being that you really do not have any clients to represent.
……………. I told you already I can multitask. The cell phone is a computer in your hand and I will never stop responding to many of you sycophants and apologists for the ALP in this medium. I am still a lawyer and will never change and lawyers are still quite busy despite what you may have heard about crime decreasing because of the lockdown. I am off to court now so I would suggest to you to go and read a good book.
One comment that did not even name you bother you so much that even when you suppose to be at cpurt to do some form of work you still responding. Spoken like a true wanna be politician wonder if you will be one of the canidates for the UPP?
And again I do not support ALP but if people like you Tabor going to be in the UPP well looks like Gaston and his merry men assured another election victory.
……………. I need to stop responding to you because it does look as if you have comprehension problems. Whether you support ALP or not is immaterial. You did not mention me by name that is true. Now used some deductive logic and tell me of all the posters in this medium, who was your statement most likely directed to. I responded to you before going to court and even at court I would be able to respond during breaks because that is the usefulness and power of the technology we carry in our hands call a cell phone. Please improve your comprehension skills (that TENMAN says I lack) and try to reason more logically. I enjoy the debate with all of you guys but make your arguments more logical and again attack the message and not the messenger. It would also be nice if all of you stop hiding your identity. I do not have to hide mine. When some one perhaps sues Antigua News Room one of these days for a defamatory comment printed on its news portal, they might then require posters on its site stop hiding. I am getting ready to wind down my legal day, so I hope you find something useful to occupy your time.
Man you are a case. I figure at least you bring humor to your clients because I can’t see you winning on their behalf. By the way at least give me some props for the 1844 date. The reason why the judges at times shout at you, is because they realize your head hard (comprehension problems). Anyway Tabor last post, thanks for the jokes
THE PACIFIST
Right in the middle of my friends ‘…Ten and Charles.’
Cannot allow my friends to be ‘Slinging mud’ at each other.
Appealing to both of you to use your intellect more wisely, if not productively.
TENMAN are you really serious seeking praise for knowing that Erskine May was published in 1844. Boy, now I see that you are a joker and not some one of substance. Yes I am a case because you sycophants and apologists are finding it difficult to respond to me. I hope it is really your last post (which brought nothing to the table) so I will not have to respond to any more nonsense. I am waiting for the day when some of you will engage in really serious debate and stop descending into the gutter.
Comments are closed.