Photo: Hon. John Briceño, Prime Minister
by Marco Lopez
BELMOPAN, Fri. Aug. 11, 2023
The business of the day in the National Assembly began with House Speaker, Valerie Woods explaining why the no-confidence motion proposed by the Opposition was not tabled. Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Moses “Shyne” Barrow had forwarded the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister, Hon. John Briceño just days before the scheduled meeting. During that House meeting, Speaker Woods elaborated on the chair’s decision to deny Barrow’s motion and his subsequent seemingly distasteful response to her.
Speaker Woods explained that recital five in Barrow’s motion infringed on Standing Order 38(5) – disallowing members from imputing improper motives against each other. Besides this, Woods outlined that recitals 9 and 11 both accused the Prime Minister of malfeasance – a civil wrong not proven in any court. Lastly, Barrow in his motion also called for a debate on the Portico Definitive Agreement – a request denied since that matter is currently being heard in the High Court. Woods emphasized that a principle of parliaments is that cases awaiting adjudication should not be discussed in the House.
Speaker Woods then shared Barrow’s Thursday evening response verbatim:
“Greetings, you Madam Speaker, have exposed yourself to be a complete waste of time as speaker of the Honorable House … You repeatedly act as a shield for the government, shamelessly misinterpreting and misapplying the Standing Orders to protect the Prime Minister and his government from public scrutiny and accountability,” stated Barrow in that written response to Woods.
He further stated in his response, “With each erroneous ruling, you expose yourself as a completely biased Speaker that will stop at nothing to protect the PUP government.”
Speaker Woods reminded the House that the chair makes decisions only after seeking the guidance of the Attorney General, and the staff of parliament, and considering set precedents. It also considers precedents and practices from other jurisdictions, guided by the Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice.
Referring to the guide, Woods elaborated, “The response, addressed to me, contains a breach of Standing Order 38(5), imputing improper motives to the chair. It’s also a breach of Standing Order 38(8) which questions the conduct of the chair. This isn’t the first occurrence. It also constitutes libel against the chair and breaches parliamentary privileges. Erskine May at paragraph 12(1) notes, ‘When any of these rights are disregarded or attacked, the offense is called a breach of privilege.’”
The Privileges Committee is responsible for addressing such matters, but action against Barrow requires a motion from another House member.
“The record will show blatant disregard and disrespect towards the chair’s authority. It is simply false,” expressed Woods.
Instead of apologizing, Barrow doubled down on the views he expressed in his message to Woods. Just an hour before today’s session, he presented his own privileged motion.
“That privileged motion has me, the chair, as the subject,” Woods commented. She vacated the seat, allowing Deputy Speaker of the House, Marconi Leal, Sr., to preside over the motion.
Shyne’s Privileged Motions
According to Barrow, this is his second privileged motion against the Speaker. It stems from the chair’s decision to deny the no-confidence motion against the PM. A prolonged exchange between members and the animated PUDP gallery made Barrow’s presentation somewhat disjointed. He opined that the denial silenced the Opposition and suggested the Speaker could have worked with him to modify the motion in compliance with House rules.
However, acting Speaker Leal denied Shyne’s request, noting the “motion was inconsistent with Standing Orders.” He added that Barrow could reintroduce a motion “at any other time, provided it does not contravene the Standing Orders.”
No debate ensued.
Outside the House
Barrow mentioned that his comments had not been made to Woods during a House of Representatives proceeding or in the National Assembly building. Hence, he argued that he shouldn’t be summoned to the Privileges Committee, as PM Briceño suggested.
“In this free society, I have free speech. Outside the House, if I utter something defamatory, I’m liable. Inside the House, I have immunity. It’s preposterous to think comments outside should follow House rules. I’m glad she read my comments; they’re my honest truth,” Barrow asserted.
PM Briceño found Barrow’s words “disrespectful and disgraceful.”
“It’s extremely disrespectful. I called for the Constitutional Privileges Committee to discuss such disrespect. This is unprecedented in Belize’s history,” PM Briceño said.
Before starting official business, PM Briceño tasked the Privileges Committee’s chairperson to arrange a meeting to address Barrow’s comments.