
It is correct that those members of parliament from the People’s National Party (PNP) who were present in Jamaica’s House of Representatives on the occasion of Mrs Juliet Holness’ selection to be the Speaker of the House should have objected to the wife of the Prime Minister (PM) being so elevated. Instead, at the time, the leader of Opposition’ Business in the House of Representatives and veteran member of parliament (MP), Phillip Paulwell seconded the selection of Mrs. Juliet Holness. In fact, having seconded the motion, Mr Paulwell said “We wish you well…we generally want you to do well so that your tenure can be successful”. A full endorsement with no expression of doubt or reservations. The President of the People’s National Party and Leader of the Opposition, within weeks of Mrs Holness’ elevation, and whilst at a political meeting, expressed his misgivings with a situation where the head of the government (the PM) is the husband of the head of the legislative arm (Parliament) of the Jamaican State. His expressed discomfort certainly reflected the views of many Jamaicans, both at home and abroad.

In his contribution to the 2024/25 Budget Debate in the House, the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Golding, whilst discussing his Party’s concern with matters of governance in Jamaica, again raised his discomfort with the situation, which prompted a walk-out from the Chamber of those members who sit on the government side of the aisle.
The starting position in discussing this issue is to first appreciate the substantive role that the Speaker plays in our system of governance. It is the Speaker, herself, a member of Parliament, who sits and marshals the course of events when the House meets. To assist her in her role, she is ably guided by the Standing Orders of the House, which in simple terms is a book of rules that determines how debates and other events, including voting should be conducted. Every now and then, the Standing Orders are amended. This does not, some say, take place as often and as radically as some would want it to be. It is not an overstatement to say that the Speaker’s role in Parliament must be viewed from the perspective of the role that the House of Representatives plays as the Chamber that ensures that the Executive, (loosely used here to refer to the cabinet), is held and kept accountable.
The starting position in discussing this issue is to first appreciate the substantive role that the Speaker plays in our system of governance. It is the Speaker, herself, a member of Parliament, who sits and marshals the course of events when the House meets.
Historical Role
The Role of the Speaker, which we have imported with our “made in Whitehall” constitution, owes its creation to the need, after the emergence of William the Conqueror (1265), for someone from the Commons to be able to inform the King of the decisions arrived at following debates in Parliament.
The Role of the Speaker, which we have imported with our “made in Whitehall” constitution, owes its creation to the need, after the emergence of William the Conqueror (1265), for someone from the Commons to be able to inform the King of the decisions arrived at following debates in Parliament.
It is a myth, certainly prior to the nineteenth century, to think that Speakers have always been independent of the Crown or the Executive. Prior to the beheading of Charles I, there was always that tension between the King and Parliament, with one Speaker (1629) being recorded as having vacated the Chair to avoid the Commons passing a resolution critical of the Monarch and his Ministers. That was the King getting his way and days later when the same motion was being presented the Speaker tried to leave Parliament, but with the doors closed the Speaker was literally forced to sit in the Chair, whilst Black Rod (Messenger of the King) tried, with no success, to enter the Chamber to inform members that the House was dissolved. Though the resolution was passed within a short time Charles I dissolved parliament and for eleven years after that the record shows that he ruled without a Parliament.

Once the tension between the Crown and Parliament ended, and Parliament became supreme (legislatively that is) and the Speaker became independent of the Crown, the issue shifted to the role that Parliament will play in relation to the Cabinet. As Parliament’s Chairperson, and with the importance of impartiality, the Speaker at Westminster has emerged as a non-partisan figure. Consequently, as part of maintaining that neutrality of the Speaker, there is a convention at Westminster that once elected the Speaker is no longer permitted to attend party political meetings/events. Additionally, though he/she runs in a general election it as “The Speaker seeking re-election”, and his/her seat is never contested.
Jamaica’s Speaker
Historically in Jamaica we have not had the challenge of a tension between the Speaker and our executive (again used in its loose sense to refer to the Cabinet). This is a system in which Speakers (and Presidents of the Upper House) actively appear on political platforms and the Speaker outside of the House is a regular visitor to party headquarters. In other words independence, when understood from the perspective of one being non-partisan, does not apply to the Office of the Speaker in the Jamaican House of Representatives.
Historically in Jamaica we have not had the challenge of a tension between the Speaker and our executive (again used in its loose sense to refer to the Cabinet). This is a system in which Speakers (and Presidents of the Upper House) actively appear on political platforms and the Speaker outside of the House is a regular visitor to party headquarters. In other words independence, when understood from the perspective of one being non-partisan, does not apply to the Office of the Speaker in the Jamaican House of Representatives.
The impact that such a partisan situation has on the functioning of the Parliament, in its capacity as both legislature and the body that keeps the Cabinet accountable, cannot and must never be underestimated in any democracy. Particularly, in a country such as Jamaica that has been averaging a score of 30 out of 100 on the Corruption Perception Index for the past twenty-two (22) years.
Undermining of Parliament’s Constitutional Role
If we are ever in doubt as to the roles that parliament is ascribed we should look no further than at sections 48(1) and 69(2) of the Jamaican Constitution. In the case of the former it is stated that one of Parliament’s roles is to “…make laws for the peace, order and the good government of Jamaica” and in the latter instance Parliament is ascribed another role, as its Cabinet “is responsible to Parliament”.

Therefore, if we accept that section 48(1) when read either by itself or with section 69(2) of the Constitution sets down the often neglected constitutional principle of good governance, then we must naturally reject the untenable situation of the PM’s spouse being Speaker of the House. This is because not only is the Office of the Speaker, as we have experienced it in Jamaica, a partisan one but also because it is challenging to see how an already politically partisan Speaker can possibly morph into a neutral umpire, when that Speaker’s spouse is the de facto head of Cabinet: there is no comparable relationship that demands the type of fidelity as the union of marriage does. Therefore, the conversation should, in light of the accountability role that Parliament is ascribed, go beyond the assertion that the PNP members of parliament should now be silent as they were when the Speaker was first elected. The discourse, one with real practical implications for the important business of accountability, must be nourished with the question: how could any member of Parliament, let alone the PM, have thought that this was not undermining Parliament and its expressed constitutional role? When one considers this question and the possible answer(s), the anaemic comments by Jamaica’s Foreign Minister, Kamina Johnson- Smith and that of the much-loved Minister of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport Olivia “Babsy” Grange, suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition was being discriminatory (because of the Speaker’s sex) when he critiqued the fact that the PM’s spouse is the Speaker, falls flat. They are the comments of persons who are being deliberate in their desire to undermine the accountability role that Parliament must play as it seeks to help us to achieve good governance.
When one considers this question and the possible answer(s), the anaemic comments by Jamaica’s Foreign Minister, Kamina Johnson- Smith and that of the much-loved Minister of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport Olivia “Babsy” Grange, suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition was being discriminatory (because of the Speaker’s sex) when he critiqued the fact that the PM’s spouse is the Speaker, falls flat. They are the comments of persons who are being deliberate in their desire to undermine the accountability role that Parliament must play as it seeks to help us to achieve good governance.
Auditor General and Integrity Commission
Even if one takes the view that s48(1) only sets out a constitutional directive and one which is counter-judicative (cannot be enforced by any action in court) , you are still left, when discussing the actions of the Speaker, in her returning to the Auditor General two or three special reports on statutory bodies instead of having them tabled and her decision to send to a parliamentary oversight committee a report of the Integrity Commission, with the role ascribed to Parliament by section 69(2) .
These specified reports of the Auditor General are statutory as distinct from the constitutional reports that she promulgates pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution. The statutory reports with which the Speaker was concerned would have been promulgated as she would have made a decision pursuant to section 29(1) of the Financial Audit and Administration Act (FAAA) to, “to prepare a special report” in respect of the specified bodies. Once these reports are prepared, the said section directs that such reports shall be sent to the Speaker so that she can lay the reports in the House. If there is a failure to comply with that mandatory provision in section 29(2) of the Act, Parliament’s ability to carry-out its s48 and/or s69 constitutional oversight/accountability role is fettered. The Speaker of the House must be made to understand not just the difference between a report promulgated pursuant to s29 of the FAAA as distinct from a report pursuant to section 30 of the said Act, but given the absolute privilege that Parliament has over its procedure, she is duty bound, (despite the fidelity top of both spouse and Party) to protect Parliament’s constitutional role as Speaker.
In this connection it has to be said that to the extent that she is recalcitrant in her refusal to disclose to Parliament the legal opinion that she inherited, on which she has grounded her flawed actions, she does not fully yet appreciate the centrality of her role: to promote Parliament’s constitutional interest. Her role is not to undermine Parliament and aid the Cabinet in its onward March to dominate and emasculate Parliament. Thus if there are members of the Cabinet who have been identified by the Integrity Commission (in a report) as being persons who have struggled, using the appropriate legal test, to explain their wealth, or if the head of the Cabinet cannot have his statutory declarations approved by the relevant statutory body, the Speaker’s role must be to take steps to get the Cabinet to make those names available to Parliament or to bring the PM before Parliament to answer to the never denied failure to settle his statutory declarations. These are matters that relate directly to good governance. Parliament enacted the Integrity Commission Act as part of its section 48 (1) obligation to pass laws that will ensure good governance.
In this connection it has to be said that to the extent that she is recalcitrant in her refusal to disclose to Parliament the legal opinion that she inherited, on which she has grounded her flawed actions, she does not fully yet appreciate the centrality of her role: to promote Parliament’s constitutional interest. Her role is not to undermine Parliament and aid the Cabinet in its onward March to dominate and emasculate Parliament.
Conclusion
The Speaker’s initial decision to deny Parliament (the full house) the opportunity to consider the Auditor General’s Reports by tabling them in accordance with section 29 and her insistence (even after relenting) that she was/is correct creates an ongoing constitutional crisis for which the first casualty is likely to be (if repeated) the accountability that citizens are being denied. The longer it continues the deeper will be the rift between this Speaker and her House and the more radical will be the necessary antidote to cure our body politic. The PM and his Members of Parliament seem not to care. I am not surprised as his track record on the constitution is not a stellar one. It will take constant and constructive agitation from within and outside of the House but this chasm between the House and the Speaker must be fixed.
Matondo K. Mukulu is a practising public-law barrister and attorney.