Each session of the national assembly brings its share of clashes and “unparliamentary” expressions. After the «collect him» incident, the speaker told the opposition leader to «rest in peace!» last Tuesday. The latter retorted, «you are a shame to democracy» and «not worth to be a speaker» before being expelled. His expulsion together with three colleagues, without counting the whip and veteran MPs for many sessions, puts into perspective the role and behaviour of an increasingly controversial speaker...

Introduction

Tension escalated between speaker Sooroojdev Phokeer and opposition leader Shakeel Mohamed on Tuesday, May 21, at the National Assembly. It ended up with the “naming” and subsequent expulsion of Shakeel Mohamed, with the speaker ordering the Serjeant-at-Arms, as he had done with opposition veteran MPs, Paul Bérenger and Rajesh Bhagwan, to “collect this man.” The altercation began during the Private Notice Question to minister of commerce Dorine Chukowry regarding the price of medicines and the measures to curb this increase. The opposition leader asked why the recommendations of the 2023 report on the market study to allow parallel importation of medicines had not been implemented. He was to make it public later in the afternoon since the minister had refused to table it. This was followed by a commotion, with Phokeer inciting the opposition to stage a “walk-out” and subsequently naming and expulsion of Labour MP Mahend Gungapersad.

Decoding politics

Every Friday on a video podcast called “Décryptage”, La Sentinelle (LSL) publications director Nad Sivaramen, political analyst and press veteran Subash Gobine, and journalist Shelly Carpayen comment the political news. Last week, the focus was on the style and role of the speaker of the National Assembly. Nad Sivaramen immediately labelled Sooroojdev Phokeer as a “bully speaker,” stating that the situation had never stooped so low and had indeed hit rock bottom. Subash Gobine highlighted that the speaker is bent on protecting the prime minister (PM) Pravind Jugnauth and his ministers, while ensuring that the parliamentary opposition is downtrodden and demobilized with a series of expulsions. Traditionally, the opposition held ministers accountable, but this speaker seems to exercise a dictatorship.

Ultimately, the question was whether the speaker is acting as an agent of the Mouvement socialiste mauricien (MSM) led by Pravind Jugnauth? Nad Sivaramen thus recalled that Phokeer was the MSM campaign manager in constituency No. 10 for the last legislative elections and behind Labour leader Navin Ramgoolam’s defeat in that constituency. His reward may have been his appointment as speaker. He then drew a parallel with Sir Harilal Vaghjee, a speaker who made history and commanded respect from all sides. Parliament at that time was characterized by intellectualism, culture, and strict adherence to formality and respect.

Sir Harilal avoided any familiarity with MPs, referring to them only by their constituencies – not with crude remarks like “look at your face” directed at MP Rajesh Bhagwan and said 11 times in a row in August 2021. There was a consensus around a single person. “He never yelled. Quite the opposite of Phokeer. I don’t believe it’s the position that makes the man, but in the case of Sir Harilal Vaghjee, it’s the man or the person that makes the position”, said Nad Sivaramen. Subash Gobine then mentioned that Phokeer may have become a source of embarrassment and created many discontented members within the MSM. Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising if attempts were made to “get rid of the Phokeer phenomenon” as speaker before Parliament dissolves...

However, the veteran journalist thinks that Phokeer could also be an asset after the Budget presentation at the Committee of Supply stage to expedite the process. He also mentioned how the opposition wishes to amend the law so that the speaker is an elected member to limit the damage caused by Phokeer or ensure that the next speaker be accepted by all. “A sort of Vaghjee formula.” He then referred to the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings that have become “a national disgrace”. All permissible limits have been exceeded and ultimately, the MSM is being tainted by the dictatorial actions of an out-of-control speaker...

(From L to R) : Labour MPs Boolell, Mohamed and Gungapersad – all three named and expelled at different times by the speaker – met the press last Tuesday.

Innovation and discrimination

The rate of suspensions and expulsions is accelerating. Questions are being removed, and supplementary questions prohibited. Not to mention the lengthy responses from ministers, often off-topic, and the refusals to answer for various reasons. Speaker Phokeer began removing questions indiscriminately as early as 2023, such as those scheduled for July 18, 2023, from MPs Patrick Assirvaden, Farhad Aumeer, and Osman Mahomed, all related to the Commissioner of Police (CP) hiring private lawyers instead of free ones from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). It was then stated that the reason for rejection was that a case was before the courts and therefore sub judice.

Contrary to the reason given to Patrick Assirvaden, Phokeer gave a less elastic interpretation of the sub judice concept on April 16, 2024, to justify admitting a Prime Minister’s Question Time from Joanne Tour (B/159) on the case of the Labour Party leader Navin Ramgoolam’s safes, although it is before the court. Paul Bérenger and Rajesh Bhagwan were “named” and expelled from Parliament following heated exchanges with Phokeer and suspended for the next six sessions. During parliamentary questions, MP Joanna Bérenger was suspended for the next three sessions for “lying,” according to the speaker, about remarks made against PM. Meanwhile, MPs Stéphanie Anquetil and Ariane Navarre- Marie were expelled for remarks against the speaker. All this on the same day.

In fact, in 2024, the speaker had stepped up his actions. At resumption of parliament on March 26, he made one of his famous announcements referring to press statements by MPs Ehsan Juman, Farhad Aumeer, and Arvin Boolell, who had complained that their questions were rejected without explanation. He invoked Standing Order (SO) 27, which states that the speaker is the sole judge of whether a question is admissible or not. In that case, the rejected questions were rather embarrassing for the government. Phokeer deemed it appropriate to add that any member whose question is refused should discuss it privately with the speaker, implying not with the press. Interpreting Article 21 (4) of the SO in his own way, Phokeer decreed that if a member wants to contest the rejection of their question, they must do so privately with the Speaker – by letter or verbally – and not during a parliamentary session.

On May 7, when Arvin Boolell wanted to ask a supplementary question about Silver Bank, the Speaker introduced a new rule: “It is the speaker who thinks whether it is fit and proper to ask a supplementary question.” On the same day, opposition whip Patrick Assirvaden was expelled and suspended for the next six sessions for refusing to apologize “for writing a letter to the speaker” about the drawing of lots for parliamentary questions. Phokeer found the letter offensive and did not allow the Labour MP to explain. On May 14, to support his claim that the Kistnen Papers were merely a “karné laboutik,” Pravind Jugnauth stated that Kistnen’s widow did not recognize her late husband’s handwriting in the agenda. The PM was relying on a press article. The speaker allowed this, whereas a few minutes earlier, Alan Ganoo had advised Phokeer to forbid Shakeel Mohamed from citing press articles in Parliament. Mohamed also wanted to know if the PM had been questioned about swearing a false affidavit. For the speaker, one cannot ask a question to the PM as an accused.

The same day, Franco Quirin wanted to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Sports about the recruitment of the national football coach. The Speaker prevented him, stating that it was his prerogative to decide whether supplementary questions could be asked. Contacted, Franco Quirin explained that through his main question, he wanted to know, among other things, the criteria used to choose the coach. “The Speaker forbade any supplementary questions before even knowing the content. When I asked for explanations, he expelled me.” The MP lamented: “It’s a poor minister dodging the question and a poor goalkeeper attacking the opposing player instead of the ball, to use a football analogy.”

On May 14, to justify the non-implementation of a specialized court to handle drug cases, Maneesh Gobin explained that among other reasons, it was not the courts delaying the suspects’ trials, but the police investigation taking time. Aadil Ameer Meea wanted to ask another supplementary question: “Yes, I know. Of course, it is enquiries that take the time, but very often, the Court also takes time to give conviction. It is not only…” The speaker intervened, not allowing the MP to finish his question: “Let the Hon. Minister reply!” thus preventing Ameer Meea from asking his question and doing it himself. Arianne Navarre- Marie intervened: “You are putting the question in his place!” Phokeer was miffed and retorted: “You, keep quiet!” Navarre-Marie was stunned: “You, keep quiet too!” The speaker ordered her to walk out. Navarre-Marie: “Keep kicking women out! Asking questions for us!” The speaker: “This is not the way to talk to a speaker.”