Speaker Juliet Holness needs to be checked

From day one, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has set a troubling tone, one that falls well below the dignity, impartiality, and respect required of that office.

 Her conduct is not only disappointing, but it is also unbecoming. It stands in sharp contrast to the legacy of past Speakers such as the late Violet Neilson, Carl Marshall, and Pearnel Charles, who upheld the authority of the Chair with fairness, restraint, and unquestioned integrity.

It is, therefore, baffling to hear calls for MP Brown to apologise. Apologise for what? The real issue is not the conduct of one Member of Parliament, but whether the Speaker herself is faithfully executing her duty. Her responsibility is clear: to protect the democratic process and ensure that all elected representatives, especially those in the Opposition, are given a fair, impartial, and uninterrupted opportunity to speak on matters of national importance. That standard is not being met.

What the country is witnessing is a deliberate shift from substance to distraction. The fixation on the removal or touching of the mace is nothing more than political theatre. It is a calculated attempt to divert attention from the far more serious issue before the nation, the NaRRA bill. This is legislation that will be funded by taxpayers’ money, yet it raises profound concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential misuse of public resources under this administration.

Instead of facilitating robust debate and scrutiny, the Speaker has allowed, if not encouraged, a narrative that elevates symbolism over substance. The mace has become a convenient shield, used to deflect from legitimate questions about governance and the stewardship of public funds. This is not leadership; it is avoidance.

Sweating the small matter of the mace while ignoring the far-reaching implications of the NaRRA bill speaks volumes about the current state of our national discourse. It signals a dangerous decline, where optics are prioritised over accountability, and where the rules of Parliament are selectively enforced to silence dissent rather than uphold democracy.

The Jamaican people deserve far better. Parliament is not a stage for distraction; it is the highest forum of the people’s business. When the Speaker fails to rise above partisanship and instead appears to suppress legitimate debate, it undermines public trust and weakens the very foundation of our democracy.

The question is no longer whether an apology is owed. The question is whether the Speaker of the House is prepared to respect the office she holds and the democratic principles she is sworn to defend. If not, then it is the people of Jamaica who are owed an explanation.