By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor

Anyone who witnessed the conclusion of the debate on the 2025 Budget in the Lower House of Parliament on Wednesday this week is entitled to view it as the most embarrassing and puerile display of unparliamentary conduct that we have witnessed as a nation in over a decade.

Total disorder and an absolute lack of decorum erupted on the floor of the House when opposition members objected to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Gaston Browne, wrapping up the debate, after all but one opposition member arrived late to the recommencement of the budget debate session on Wednesday afternoon, and their absence had prompted the PM to seize the political opportunity to conclude.

If no present Member of the House wishes to contribute any further discussion to a bill, it is in order for the mover of the Bill to conclude the debate and for the House to vote on it. A member of the House who wishes to contribute but is unprepared to do so at a given point in time is not by right entitled to an adjournment to another day until they are prepared to speak.

What happened on Wednesday?

MP Melford Nicholas was the last person to speak during the morning session of the budget debate on Wednesday. Till that point, and in chronological order, the MPs who had spoken were Gaston Browne (mover of the Bill), Jamle Pringle (opposition leader), Maria Browne, Richard Lewis, and Melford Nicholas. The house then adjourned and agreed to recommend at 2:45 PM.

When the house recommenced sometime after 2:50 PM, however, the opposition members were not present except for Rural West MP Richard Lewis, who had already spoken. The PM began his wrap-up statement but the opposition members soon began arriving. When they all arrived, they objected to the wrapping up of the debate but nonetheless insisted that none of them who had not yet presented – like Walker, Simon, Bowen, or Watts – were at that time prepared to debate. They instead insisted that other MPs on the government side who had also not yet spoken should go ahead of them.

It became clear in the ensuing argument and also from exchanges before the adjournment that there was an unresolved disagreement between both sides over the order of presentation which seemed to be at the heart of the matter. The government clearly preferred that there be a strict rotation: The PM, then the Opposition Leader, then a government MP, then an opposition MP, and so on.

The opposition clearly preferred to have more members of the government side go in succession so that their members could use their presentations to rebut what was said. At some point in the ensuing argument on the floor, MP Richard Lewis reasoned that the opposition MPs – their numbers brought down by the death of Independent MP Michael, and the departure of MP Smith to join the Cabinet – were at a disadvantage, and would benefit from more MPs on the government side going in succession, so that they could respond to all of what would be said by the government’s representatives.

The Prime Minister interpreted their collective absence at the beginning of the session’s recommencement as a coordinated move by the opposition to force the government MPs/ministers to speak first, even though the government had signaled its preference for a rotation. Browne therefore began to wrap up, even though none of his own MPs/Ministers except Maria Browne and Melford Nicholas had as yet contributed.

Specifically, that meant that Sir Steadroy Benjamin, Molwyn Joseph, Charles Fernandez, Daryl Matthew, Chet Greene, and Sir Robin Yearwood, had not contributed. They did not protest. Whether they were wholly in agreement with his approach is unknown, as Labour MPs seldom break rank. It was clear, however, that the Prime Minister was determined not to have the opposition set the terms of how the debate would flow.

Shortly after the Prime Minister began wrapping up, other members of the opposition arrived, specifically MPs Algernon Watts and Kelvin “Shugy” Simon. Shortly thereafter, the Opposition Leader himself, MP Jamal Pringle, and MP Trevor Walker also arrived. It was at this point that all hell broke loose so to speak and total disorder took hold.

The Opposition Leader rose on a point of order, seeking clarity on why the Prime Minister was concluding the debate when there were members on both sides who were yet to speak, and whether this conformed to the rules. In response, the Speaker and alternatively the Prime Minister, responded that when the debate recommenced no members present were desirous of debating, and that therefore, the mover of the Bill began to wrap up.

Of course, the reason that no members were desirous of debating was that the government MPs who had not yet spoken and the former UPP, now Independent MP and Cabinet Minister Anthony Smith who had also not yet spoken were quite okay with following the Prime Minister’s lead and withholding their contributions to facilitate an end to the debate in defiance of what they would have seen as the opposition’s attempt to maneuver them into speaking according to its preference.

When Pringle rose on his point order, it began what would ultimately turn out to be roughly 35 minutes of actual arguing on the floor of Parliament, much of which took place with utter disregard for the Speaker. It was in our humble estimation the most appalling display of behavior that has occurred in Antigua and Barbuda’s Parliament in at least the last decade.

Of course, the argument surrounded the reasonable expectation of who ought to present when, and whether it was the correct procedure to allow the wrap-up of the debate. But when given the opportunity, none of the opposition members who had not yet spoken were prepared to stand then and actually contribute to the debate.

Pringle and Walker argued that if no opposition MP was prepared to debate, then the MPs on the government side, or Independent MP Smith, should go ahead. But neither Smith nor any of the ruling party MPs/Ministers opted to do so. So the Prime Minister would then resume his wrap-up statement, which prompted Pringle and Walker to again intervene to stop the Prime Minister, prompting the intervention of the Speaker to stop Pringle and Walker.

This cycle continued over and over for 35 minutes. The PM would continue his wrap-up statement only to be interrupted by Pringle and Walker, thereby prompting the Speaker’s intervention. The Speaker would repeat the reasoning that no other member wished to debate. Throughout all of this, the UPP/BPM members who had not yet debated (Walker, Bowen, Watts, and Simon) declined to debate.

Walker himself stated that he “wanted” to debate but “my notes are at home” and said that he did not believe he would have had to have debated that day, but had planned to do so on Thursday. Both himself and Pringle insisted the house be adjourned rather than the debate concluded by the mover of the Bill. They also said that they thought Independent MP Smith would have participated in the debate when the session recommenced.

During the 35-minute argument, the Leader of the Opposition and the MP for Barbuda raised their voices to the level of shouting, to the point that the newly installed Speaker, Osbert Frederick, actually asked one of them, “Why are you shouting?” Walker actually bellowed that if he had to “filibuster like in the American Congress” in order to stop the Prime Minister’s wrap-up statement, then he would do so.

Apart from crosstalk, MPs Watts, Bowen, and Simon were largely silent throughout all of this, and so too were all of the MP/Ministers on the government side apart from the PM itself. The debacle’s primary participants were Walker, Pringle, the PM, and the Speaker. They went round and round and round with Walker and Pringle insisting that the PM’s wrap-up of the debate should not proceed.

We could help but observe that throughout the debacle, Pringle and Walker showed a frightening level of contempt for the Speaker. Both members were shouting at the speaker,  spoke over the speaker repeatedly,  and amazingly, refused to sit down when the speaker rose to his feet. When the Speaker of the House stands it is procedurally a signal to all other members to take their seats and to resume silence.

The Prime Minister would also interrupt the speaker in order to respond to comments coming from Walker and Pringle. He too was also caught failing to resume his seat immediately in one instance when the Speaker had risen to his feet. But to be fair, it was eclipsed by that of Pringle and Walker, Walker especially. All of it was obscenely out of order, even for Antigua and Barbuda’s Parliament

The Speaker, Osbert Frederick, probably rose to his feet more times in this single afternoon session of Parliament than his predecessor, Sir Gerald Watt did in his entire 10-year tenure in the chair. The entire debacle was deplorable. Worryingly, the Speaker could not achieve any order, as he seemed to be restraining himself from ejecting Walker and Pringle, which we frankly think he ought to have done.

We will say it again: Walker and Pringle should have been ejected. We were not terribly impressed with the choice of Frederick for Speaker, but he displayed a herculean level of restraint on Wednesday – restraint which rapidly became enabling. Walker actually shouted, daring the Speaker to have the Seargent at Arms remove him.

Should the Debate Have Been Concluded?

On the issue of who contributes when, and whether it was reasonable to expect the opposition to contribute next or whether it was reasonable to end the debate when no opposition member was prepared to contribute, we would say this: It was pigheaded for the PM to effectively silence his own MPs/Ministers or for them to silence themselves in order not to conform to the preferences of the opposition, but it also unfathomable that the opposition had no members prepared to actually debate on Wednesday afternoon.

Members are not compelled to debate. Rather, they are given the opportunity to contribute during bills and other matters that are before the house. They have the freedom to contribute or not contribute to any given discussion. It ought to be clear that there is no procedural expectation that every single member must speak during the debate. It is only procedure that they are afforded the opportunity if they so desire. If they turn down the opportunity, that is on them.

This therefore means that any opposition party in the House must be careful not to be politically out-maneuvered by the government. An opposition party debating a budget must be wary of the fact that if none of its members yet to speak are present at any given point in time, then it means that the opportunity is presented to the governing party to abort the presentations of its own MPs and simply end the debate.

We do not view such an action by the governing party lightly. In our opinion, while it may appear to be politically advantageous, such an action robs the people of Antigua and Barbuda of the fullest opportunity to benefit from all the contributions of all the members whom they have elected to represent them.

But what is completely evident is that Jamal Pringle MP, the Leader of the Opposition, failed manifestly on Wednesday to strategically prepare and ensure the presence of his MPs for the debate so as to prevent the ruling party from prematurely wrapping up. Amazingly, this is the second time in a row that Pringle has walked into this trap. We point to the prematurely concluded budget debate in December 2023.  

In that episode, the government and the opposition disagreed on how soon following the Prime Minister’s presentation of the budget and the laying of the estimates, the debate ought to commence. After the Prime Minister had presented the budget statement on either a Thursday or a Friday – we cannot remember which –  the opposition insisted that it ought to have at least until Thursday of the next week to commence the debate with the Opposition Leader’s response.

The government insisted that Tuesday of the following week would be sufficient. The opposition insisted on Thursday. The House voted and the government side won out. But on the following Tuesday, December 19th, 2023, all opposition members boycotted the budget debate. Governing party MPs /Ministers concluded all their contributions that day, and in the late evening, the Prime Minister ended the debate, and the budget Bill was passed.

That action by the opposition a year ago was largely meaningless. It achieved little. While we might agree that adequate time ought to be allotted for the opposition to prepare a response to the budget and to digest the estimates, the political reality is that the opposition gains nothing politically by boycotting the budget over such a minute issue.

Having come from that experience in late 2023, we genuinely thought that UPP Leader, MP Jamale Pringle, would have upped his strategic game, and would have ensured that nothing similar could happen again. Evidently, we were wrong. We were very very wrong. Why Pringle and his MPs would arrive late is anyone’s guess. Why the remaining UPP/BPM MPs who had not debated were unprepared to do so, is another question entirely.

It should be noted that there is no hard and fast established order in which MPs are to speak. They volunteer themselves and are recognized by the Speaker as the Speaker sees fit.

It is notable that Richard Lewis MP was early and present for the recommencement of the afternoon session of the budget debate on Wednesday, even though he had already presented. It is also notable that he is the only opposition MP who actually ended up debating the budget outside of Pringle. Once again the UPP needs to ask itself whether it chose the right leader.

Meanwhile, the PM has left us astonished by ending the budget debate when only 3 out 9 Labour MPs/Ministers had spoken, all so that he could have his way with regard to the order of who should speak when and the preference for rotation. In total, only 5/16 MPs contributed to the budget debate in the Lower House.

It is unconscionable that 11 MPs representing the UPP, the ABLP, the BPM, and one Independent sat in their seats and did not contribute to the debate, as they all put political point scoring above their actual duty to their constituents. What can possibly be said of the Labour Ministers/MPs who offered no protest at the notion of withholding their contribution to the 2025 Budget in order to sideline the opposition? What can be said of the UPP/BPM MPs who were unprepared or unwilling to debate on Wednesday? What can be said of the Independent MP Anthony Smith, who is also a Cabinet member, remaining silent as well? This is what these people are paid to do? Bicker like children over who should go first?

The entire thing was a mockery. The Speaker failed manifestly. The Opposition Leader failed manifestly to lead. Trevor Walker lost his mind. Gaston Browne was obsessed with scoring points. Meanwhile, the silent MPs on the government and opposition benches who all refused to debate demonstrated either cowardice or incompetence or a mixture of both.

About the writer:

Kieron Murdoch is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. He worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email staff@antigua.news.