4
guyanatimesgy.com
SUnDAY, november 25, 2018
Views Editor: Tusika Martin News Hotline: 231-8063 Editorial: 231-0544 223-7230,223-7231,231-0544, 225-7761 Marketing: 231-8064 Accounts: 225-6707 Mailing address: Queens Atlantic Investment Estate Industrial Site, Ruimveldt, Georgetown Email: news@guyanatimesgy.com, marketing@guyanatimesgy.com
Editorial
The no-confidence motion’s timing T
he official results of the Local Government Elections (LGE) were finally announced by GECOM, and they confirmed what the PPP/C had declared a week ago: the PPP had won the popular vote with 61 per cent of votes cast, while APNU trailed far behind with 34 per cent and the AFC collected an insignificant 4 per cent. Because the political parties had contested the LGE separately in their own names, it is not surprising that the vote is seen as a referendum on the performance of the incumbent PNC-led coalition. The PPP/C then decided to file a “motion of no confidence” in the Government, paraphrasing the stark language set by the British House of Commons: ‘That this House has no confidence in the APNU+AFC Government’. In such motions, there is no need to state the reasons for placing them before the Legislature; the practice is an intrinsic aspect of Westminsterstyle Parliamentary governments. The official House of Commons’ description of “noconfidence” motions quotes Rodney Brazier’s “Constitutional Practice, 2nd ed”: “The real significance of the general requirement that a Government retain the confidence of the House of Commons is not in the rare loss of a vote of confidence or in the somewhat more frequent legislative defeat, but rather that it obliges every Government to defend itself, explain its policies, and justify its actions to its own backbenchers, to the Opposition parties, and through them to the country as a whole.” When filing the no-confidence motion, the PPP/C had insisted that it be given the highest priority, and had placed this responsibility on the Speaker of the National Assembly. In clarifying this latter point, the Clerk of the National Assembly released a statement which revealed that in the event that our National Assembly’s Standing Orders do not cover a particular point of order (as, in this case, who controls the timing of the debate on a no-confidence motion) the said Standing Orders instruct that the practice from the British House of Commons be followed. He then quoted from the authoritative Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 23rd edition, 2004, as did the House of Commons itself in the aforementioned definition of no-confidence motions: “From time to time, the Opposition puts down a motion on the paper, expressing lack of confidence in the Government, or otherwise criticising its general conduct. By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion tabled by the official Opposition which, in the Government’s view, would have the effect of testing the confidence of the House. In allotting a day for this purpose, the Government is entitled to have regard to the exigencies of its own business, but a reasonably early day is invariably found…” From this statement, the Clerk averred that it is the Government, rather than the Speaker, that sets the date for the debate. For us in Guyana, this is unfortunately a moot issue, since the actions and decisions of the incumbent Speaker have never -- not on a single issue, no matter how contentious -taken a position against the Government. The PNC-led Government, to its credit, did not question the right of the Opposition to call for the no-confidence vote, even though PM Moses Nagamootoo questioned its propriety in light of President Granger’s unfortunate illness. He appeared not to appreciate that the fortunes and fate of the Government that is in charge of the state demand that the representatives of the people look beyond personal challenges in favour of the greater good. But as for the timing, which the Government insists must be after the Budget Debate, it is unfortunate that the Clerk did not include the rest of the paragraph from Erskine May: “This convention is founded on the recognised position of the Opposition as a potential Government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business. For its part, the Government has everything to gain by meeting such a direct challenge to its authority at the earliest possible moment.” Why is the Government dodging?
An employee selects a book from the shelves of the Royal Portuguese Cabinet of Reading in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Founded in 1837 by a group of Portuguese immigrants, the library has been open to the public since 1900 and houses many rare and valuable books (BBC News)
Senior Saudi prince says CIA cannot be trusted on Khashoggi conclusion A
senior Saudi prince cast doubt upon the reported Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) finding that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, saying the agency could not be counted on to reach a credible conclusion. “The CIA is not necessarily the highest standard of veracity or accuracy in assessing situations. The examples of that are multitude,” Prince Turki al-Faisal, a senior member of the royal family, told journalists in Abu Dhabi on Saturday. The prince, a former Saudi intelligence chief who has also served as
ambassador to the United States, said the agency’s conclusion that Iraq possessed chemical weapons before the US invasion in 2003 showed it could be unreliable. “That was the most glaring of inaccurate and wrong assessments, which led to a full-scale war with thousands being killed,” he said, speaking at an event hosted by the New Yorkbased Beirut Institute. “I don’t see why the CIA is not on trial in the United States. This is my answer to their assessment of who is guilty and who is not and who did what in the consulate in Istanbul.” The CIA has concluded that Prince Mohammed ordered the operation to kill
Khashoggi, as first reported by the Washington Post, and briefed other parts of the US Government on its findings, sources told Reuters last week. US President Donald Trump has disputed that the agency reached a conclusion on the murder, saying instead “they have feelings certain ways.”
Tension and frustration at the US-Mexico border
A Turkish newspaper also reported on Thursday that CIA director Gina Haspel signaled to Turkish officials that the agency had a recording of a call in which the crown prince gave instructions to “silence” the journalist.
Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, in an operation that Turkish authorities have said was ordered by the highest level of Saudi leadership, prompting the kingdom’s biggest political crisis in a generation. After offering numerous contradictory explanations, Riyadh said Khashoggi was killed and his body dismembered after negotiations to persuade him to return to Saudi Arabia failed. The kingdom’s public prosecutor is seeking the death penalty for five suspects charged in the murder, but has said Prince Mohammed had no prior knowledge of the operation.
(Reuters)
Jamal Khashoggi’s daughters pay tribute to their ‘Baba’ …vow ‘his light will never fade’
J
amal Khashoggi’s two daughters have written a poignant tribute to their father, vowing that “his light will never fade”. Noha Khashoggi, a graphic designer based in Dubai, and her sister, Razan Jamal, describe life with the man they call “Baba”, who was killed in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on October 2. “Dad was no dissident,” they wrote in the newspaper where he was a columnist, The Washington Post, emphasising his passionate love of his homeland. “It was vitally important to him to speak up, to share his opinions, to have candid discussions.” The pair recall their childhood, when the celebrated journalist would take them to book-
Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi
shops and allow them to rifle through his paper-filled office. They also recall travelling to his Virginia home, after his death. “The hardest part was seeing his empty chair,” they wrote. “His absence was deafening.” On Saturday, as the article was published, a senior Saudi prince cast doubt upon the reported CIA finding that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered Khashoggi’s murder, saying the agency could not be counted on to reach a credible conclusion. Donald Trump, the US President, has also disputed that the agency reached a conclusion on the murder, saying instead “they have feelings certain ways.” (The Telegraph)