Government Information Service

by Emmanuel H. Joseph
Government Information Service

On 4th February, 2010, the Dominican Parliament convened for the first meeting of the first session of the eighth parliament. One of the top things on the order paper was the election of a new Speaker of the House of Assembly (commonly referred to as the House) and a Deputy Speaker along with the taking of oaths by members of Parliament seeing that was the first time the House was being convened after the December 18, 2009 General Elections.

The Prime Minister had previously said that he and his Cabinet would have nominated Mrs. Knight to be Speaker of the House while the Hon. Parliamentary Representative for the Colihaut Constituency, Ronald Toulon would be nominated for the post of Deputy Speaker.

Both nominations went through as members of the opposition did not show up for Parliament. Mrs. Knight was re-elected Speaker of the House, the first time in the history of Dominica that someone will be serving three consecutive terms as Speaker of the House of Assembly.

In expressing her gratitude in being re-elected, Mrs. Knight told the Parliament that she was honoured to be elected again but will continue to serve by the orders of parliament whether persons deem her decisions popular or not.

“As with my being elected to serve once again, I am truly humbled by the opportunity I have been given to serve my country in this capacity once more. I give members here and the general public my solemn promise that I will do my best to observe the rules of the House unflinchingly even when the rulings I may make would be unpopular. However, I think that my first duty is to the Standing Orders of this Parliament and that is where I intend to take my duty. Once again, thank you very much for electing me for a third term.”

Hon. Ronal Toulon was elected as Deputy Speaker of the House.

In the meantime, President of Dominica, His Excellency Nicholas J. O. Liverpool, congratulated both the Speaker of the House on being re-elected and to the Hon. Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

In continuing his address, His Excellency addressed that matter of the absence of a leader of the opposition. He outlined the reasons behind the choosing or appointing of a Leader of the Opposition and what can be done in the absence of one.

“Recognition of the right of organized and responsible dissent has led those who framed our Constitution to the acceptance of the principle that a special parliamentary status be conferred on the elected member of the House who commands the support of the majority of the elected members who do not support the Government. This individual is potentially the next Prime Minister. The fact that one has not yet been appointed should not prevent us from acknowledging the importance of the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

Constitutionally and also by convention, the Leader of the Opposition enjoys a status which enables that person to have a say in many matters of State; and this also carries with it the expectation that the Prime Minister will consult him from time to time on important problems of national concern, such as constitutional change; electoral reform; territorial integrity; environmental protection and climate change, and regional and sub-regional integration.
If an occasion arises when no person is both qualified and willing to accept appointment as Leader of the Opposition, the Constitution empowers the President to act in his own deliberate judgment on any matter in which he is required to act on the advice of, or after consultation with, the Leader of the Opposition.”

His Excellency went on to say that in as much as the members of the Opposition have not taken their seats in Parliament as yet, it places additional burden on the Honourable members present at this sitting of the House to scrupulous in their conduct of the proceedings of this Chamber, and to always bear in mind that the population would expect of them an even greater sense of magnanimity, responsibility and good judgment than would otherwise prevail.

His Excellency went on further to explain the law as it relates to when a Government controls two-thirds and more of the Parliament.

“Concerns have been expressed about the potential risks to our Constitution when a Government holds more than three-quarters of the membership of the House. This concern was dealt with clearly and extensively in the Report of the Constitutional Review Commission which reported in February, 1999, and I have referred to this matter in previous addresses to this Honourable House.  The pertinent sections of paragraph 19 of that significant Report are repeated here for emphasis -

“19.1 There are two levels of entrenchment of the provisions in the Constitution. The lower level of entrenchment requires that a Bill to amend the relevant provision of the Constitution shall not be regarded as passed in the House unless supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected members of the House. Additionally, there must be an interval of not less than 90 days between the introduction of the Bill in the House and the beginning of the proceedings in the House of Assembly on the second reading of the Bill.

19.2 There is a deeper level of entrenchment which protects many areas of the Constitution. These include the fundamental rights and freedoms, the institution of the Presidency, the composition of Parliament, the Electoral Commission, the power of Parliament to make laws, the method of enacting Bills into law, the frequency of sessions of Parliament, its prorogation and dissolution, the delimitation of constituencies, the Constituency and Boundaries Commission, the Public Services Commission, the offices of Auditor General and Director of Public Prosecutions, the relevant provisions of the Courts Order and the Parliamentary Commissioner.

19.3 At that level, the Bill to amend must be supported by a majority of three-quarters of all the elected members of the House. The same interval must elapse between presenting the Bill on the first reading and the commencement of the debate on the second reading. Additionally, before being presented to the President for signature, the Bill must have been approved in a referendum held in accordance with such provision as may be made in that behalf by Parliament by a majority of the votes validly cast in that referendum.

19.4 It should be noted that the Constitution itself was not     subjected to ratification by the people of Dominica by way of referendum. It was a compact agreed by the acknowledged political representatives of the people acting on their behalf.

19.5 It would be reasonable to infer that the provisions for a referendum were inserted because of the fear that some party could conceivably win three-quarters of all the elected seats in the House and thus control the power to change the provisions of the Constitution without consultation with any of the other political parties and certainly without their agreement. As has been mentioned under the section dealing with the system for elections, it is possible for a party to win all the seats in the House while securing a bare 50.1% of the votes cast. In such a situation there is a very good chance that that party would succeed in a referendum as well – although that is not at all certain. In any event the mere fact that a referendum would have to be held would act as a disincentive to attempting an amendment."

More of the President’s address can be found at the President’s Office Website.

Among matters expected to be dealt with at this sitting of the house is a bill to amend the collection of entry and exit taxes at the ports of entry and departure among others.