The Political Leader, Executive Committee, and the Women’s Forum of the United Progressive Party (UPP) place on record their support for the positions expressed and the decisions taken in Parliament, on May 14, 2020, by the Hon. Jamale L. Pringle, Member for All Saints East and St. Luke.
We agree that MP Pringle acted within his rights as a Member of the House of Representatives in his attempt to register, by way of the Hansard, his explanation for declining a position on the Cabinet’s Economic Recovery Committee.
The document known as Standing Orders of the House of Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda is colloquially referred to as the Parliamentary “Bible.”
According to Standing Order No. 6(5): “The Speaker … shall have the power to regulate the conduct of business in all matters not provided for in these Standing Orders,” while SO No. 13(l) clearly provides for “Personal Explanations” and elaborates on them under SO No. 20.
The treatise written by Thomas Erskine May in 19th-century England does not supersede the Standing Orders from which the Speaker derives his powers here.
While Sir Gerald Watt, QC, was within his right to determine whether MP Pringle should be allowed to make his Explanation, he had no right to prevent him from doing so on the grounds he cited – which, ironically, are not supported by Erskine May.
The platform of Personal Explanations has been used many times – usually by Members of the Opposition bench – to address matters relevant to their tenure, since, outside of a debate, they would have no avenue to speak. Surely, neither the letter nor the spirit of the Standing Orders could have intended representatives of The People to sit voiceless in the Lower House.
In recent memory, the Hon. Asot Michael, Member for St. Peter, who sits on the Government bench, utilized this platform to report on his health following his return from major surgery at the Mayo Clinic. There was no objection from the Speaker then.
Accordingly, we applaud MP Pringle for voicing his displeasure at the unfair and discriminatory treatment meted out to him by Sir Gerald, and agree that this is not the first such occasion.
Instead of the “thin ice” to which the Speaker refers, MP Pringle was standing on high moral ground and in defence of the democracy and fair play the House ought to exemplify.
“Brother Jamale enjoys my full support, as well as my admiration, for the courage he displayed on Thursday,” says Political Leader Harold Lovell. “In a situation where he was the only minority voice or presence, and facing a hostile Government side and Speaker, it took tremendous courage not only to state his case, but to defend it.”
Dr. W. Baldwin Spencer, former Prime Minister and one-time sole Opposition Member, also commends MP Pringle for his stance, and he encourages him to continue fighting in the interest of those he represents.
Meanwhile, on a related matter, Chairperson of the UPP and former Speaker of the House Dame D.Gisele Isaac points to SO No. 36(4), “Contents of Speeches,” which states that “Members shall be referred to by the names of the Constituencies for which they have been elected.”
Accordingly, she says, the use of titles – such as Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Attorney-General – is out of order in the House of Representatives.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Compounding ignorance with more ignorance. Who expects better from the UPP.? Jamale, allow yourself to develop into a quality statesman with the capacity to speak truthfully, in a forthright and manly manner. What you demonstrated in Parliament was childish and unmanly and so disappointing. Look around you and see the persons who are cheering you on and you will realize their true agenda. Don’t be that (sacrificial) fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread.
Well said.
IT is a BURNING SHAME to read that The UPP is encouraging the Opposition Leader Disrespect for the Speaker of the House and The Antigua Parliament. This shows that All the UPP Members are working hard to see the failure of the Opposition Leader . UPP has made this Political . I wonder if the UPP members listened / watched
the recording. SHAME SHAME
Jamale Pringle should show more respect for the Speaker of the House and Parliament. I watched Parliament that day . I believe that Jamale Pringle could not make any contribution to the Bill so what He did was a COPP OUT. Jamale was not prepared. I do hope that the Executive Body of the UPP will guide this Guy in the right direction. Jamale Please apologise to regain your status and avoid your political career from going down the SLIPPERY SLOPE.
I feel sorry for him. He is being made a laughingstock by the UPP. Again, word on the street is that Lovell wants to run in Pringle constituency, so the plan is to make Pringle look like a battum. They clearly want the youngman to fail. So many “educated elitists” in the UPP and not one of them can help him with grammar, comprehension, subject-verb-agreement etc etc??? This is real messed up. Check ishorna for help boy.
Reply
Nothing political here. Just pure dunceness. I mean up to now Pringle doesn’t know Parliamentary procedures. No wonder the Speaker had to advise him to go buy a copy of the Eskine May Parlimentary Practice Book and familiarize himself with the rules of parliament. But I guess the UPP did not make any effort to educate or teach him. They rather see him go in there each time and make a fool of himself. Shame is not only on him =, but on the entire party. I mean in our system of government the Y’s have it and the vote is never even close. He is like a lone ranger, like Baldwin in the old days. But at least Baldwin learned and did quite a good job I must say. Until he one day became PM. But Pringle sorry you are no Baldwin and you’ll never be one. Might as well do like Daniel and call it quit. This is above your pay grade.
Reply
Yesterday was a dark day in Antigua’s politics. It was not bcuz of Jamal Pringle who is the leader of the opposition walked out of parliament but it was the manner in which it was done…..What was displayed in parliament by Mr. Pringle was indispicuable and uncalled for to say the least….. Respect should be given where respect is due! In spite of the fact that he felt the speaker of the house treated him unfairly and was bias towards him, Mr Pringle had no right to respond in that manner…. Ofcourse, it is Mr. Pringle’s rights to oppose or express his displeasure concerning his convictions…. However, “it is not what you say but how you say it” and the same applies ” it is not what you do it is how you doi it…. ” Infact, in my view, he had the perfect opportunity to expose the hypocrisy/ biasness of the Speaker and at the sametime boost his political mantle.. It is sad that his emotions got the best of him… Clearly what he displayed in parliament is indicative of the negative influence he is recieving from the hiearchy of the UPP pundits…. My advice to Mr Pringle is that be himself. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Exercise wisdom, make a positive name for himself in the political arena and filter out the negative energies that surrounds him especially from those who are now in the twilight of their political career…….
@BLUDDY BLOKE
TOTALLY in agreement with you. Sometimes in life the Persons closest to You can be your WORST ENEMY I cannot believe that the Members of the UPP don’t see any WRONG with Jamale’s actions in Parliament.This like telling Your Child HE / SHE is right after beating the Teacher at school. I know Jamale ‘s Mother and DO NOT believe She tolerate this type of behaviour. UPP check yourself. A snap election is BREWING. This election ABLP will win ALL the seats including Barbuda.
The UPP may have just committed political suicide. This may be the last seat in the house for the party.
Clearly the member is incompetent to the roll he was thrust into.
Shame on HAROLD , GISEL ISAAC , TABOR , KNIHHT. SERPENT CLEON ATHILL and other members of the UPP for leading Jamale Pringle down the WRONG path and TOTALLY destroyed Jamale Political career.You Guys have done a FANTASTIC Job. SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Rupert Mann shame for what really? Was the Speaker of the House correct when he refused to grant permission to the Leader of the Opposition to make a personal explanation? I would like to hear your view on that and then we can start a discussion. You guys must be more objective. I am very disappointed in the Speaker and his lack of knowledge of the rules and he is the same one who is always talking about Erskine May.
Mr. Tabor the same speaker also blocked MP Dean Jonas from pulling the same stunt after the PM removed him from Agriculture. Check the tapes. Dean Jonas just like Jamal Pringle wanted to use “Personal Explanations” to “explain” his side of the issue. The Speaker objected and Dean Jonas CHOSE to comply. Jamal Pringle CHOSE to outright verbally attack the speaker AND the House (“I don’t care what y’all do in here”). Losing your cool is one thing, disrespect is another.
@ Charles Tabor
I am addressing this situation in the manner in which Jamale Pringle Disrespect the speaker of the House. Mistakes were made on both sides but The Speaker gave Jamale AMPLE time to apologise and He did not.
Another thing that bother me that NO ONE from the UPP came out and showed where Jamale went wrong. All what I am reading that the SPEAKER is totally wrong which is NONE SENSE. Mr. Tabor I believe that you should be the One to show where Jamale went wrong. I believe that Jamale is slowly destroying His political career.
Rupert Mann I am not condoning the way Jamale responded to the Speaker when he rose on the second occasion to make his contribution on the resolution to extend the public state of emergency. He should have been more tempered and diplomatic in his response. Many times it is not what you say but how you say it. For that I would give Pringle some wrong, but my Lord the Speaker of the House was so wrong in the reasons he gave for refusing to grant permission to Pringle to give his personal explanation. The Speaker was dead wrong.
Truth be Told what Dean Jonas tried to do and also what Pringle tried to do, that is to say, give a personal explanation for something that related them in their capacity as a member of the House of Representatives is not a stunt. The Standing Orders of the House allow for it. The Bible of Parliamentary Procedure by Erskine May also allows for it. Perhaps the Speaker is getting old and do not remember the Rules, but he was wrong in Dean Jonas case and he is also wrong in Pringle’s case in not allowing the personal explanation.
Comments are closed.