The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Juliet Holness, has described as “regrettable” Tuesday’s walkout by members of the Parliamentary Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, after they were prevented from asking questions about the Government’s preparation for possible hurricane impact within 48 hours.

The Opposition Leader yesterday questioned why Opposition members were not being allowed to seek clarification on a statement made by Minister of Environment Matthew Samuda regarding the approaching tropical storm that could affect the island in the coming days.

In a statement issued following the incident, the Speaker defended her handling of the matter, stressing that all actions taken from the Chair were guided strictly by the Standing Orders and aimed at preserving order, upholding parliamentary rules, and maintaining the integrity of the proceedings.

The Speaker explained that the disruption occurred during the Statements by Ministers segment when a Member of the Opposition attempted to raise a question that was deemed procedurally improper.

“The question posed by the Member for Southeast St. Mary clearly related to payment to contractors and settlement of invoices and was outside of the allowed questions based on the statement by the Minister,” the Speaker said.

“Having assessed the content of the question against the relevant rules, it was determined to be out of order as the subject matter was not within the official cognizance of the Minister tasked with responding to the question.”

According to the Speaker, the ruling was consistent with several provisions of the Standing Orders, including Standing Order 16(1)(a), which stipulates that questions must seek factual information or official action from a Minister responsible for the matter in question.

Additionally, Standing Orders 16(1)(g)(8), (11), and 16(1)(h) prohibit questions about press statements, private individuals (such as contractors), or hypothetical propositions all of which the Speaker said applied to the Opposition Member’s question.

Despite the ruling, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of Opposition Business reportedly rose on separate occasions to challenge the decision and the conduct of the sitting. The Speaker said she had invited the Opposition Leader of Business to discuss the issue privately and to suspend the sitting to find a reasonable way forward, but he declined.

“Instead of finding an amicable solution, efforts were made to continue the matter publicly in defiance of the ruling,” the Speaker said, describing the actions as “a clear attempt to usurp or publicly undermine the authority of the Speaker.”

The statement further noted that the Leader of the Opposition subsequently instructed his members not to participate in further proceedings, effectively halting their involvement in the day’s business before leading the walkout.

“The subsequent walkout by Members of the Opposition was regrettable to say the least,” the Speaker said. “But worse, it was an affront to the proper order of the House, a breach of parliamentary decorum, and, ultimately, undermined the interest of the people of Jamaica whom we are all elected to serve.”

Reaffirming her commitment to impartiality, the Speaker said her role was to apply the Standing Orders “firmly and without fear or favour.”

“This is the House of Representatives it is a chamber for serious, respectful, and disciplined debate in the interest of the people of Jamaica,” she added.

The Opposition has not yet issued an official response to the Speaker’s statement.