PARAMARIBO — Chairman of the National Assembly (DNA), Ashwin Adhin, responded in a statement on Monday to the criticism that has arisen over the procedure during the public meeting of parliament. According to Adhin, the meeting earlier in the day was opened and continued in full legality in accordance with DNA’s rules of procedure.
The discussion arose after the VHP faction objected to the fact that Adhin had not yet placed his name on the attendance list at the opening of the meeting and should therefore be regarded as not present. According to the faction, this would have consequences for the legal validity of the meeting.
Adhin firmly rejects that interpretation. He states that Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure provides that the Registrar shall hand over the attendance list to the Chairman once at least 26 Members have signed. At that time, the chairman is obliged to open the meeting immediately.
According to Adhin, that condition has been met. “The chairman opened the meeting when the required number of members were present and signed,” the statement said.
Attendance list administrative instrument
Adhin emphasizes that the attendance list is primarily an administrative tool used to determine the quorum and as a basis for the official report of the meeting. According to him, the list does not constitute a constitutive condition for the chairman’s authority to chair the meeting.
He points out that the rules of procedure do not contain a provision that requires the chairman to sign himself before he can open the meeting. In addition, he notes that Article 31 explicitly stipulates that the attendance list remains available to the clerk during the meeting, so that members arriving later can still sign. In that context, he added his signature during the meeting.
No reason for a new opening
The chairman also rejected the proposal that the meeting should have been reopened. According to him, it is legally incorrect to speak of a “restart” of the meeting. According to Adhin, such a qualification would mean that all previous actions, including the contribution of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the government during the first round of budget discussions, would be legally invalid.
According to him, there is no legal basis for that conclusion. “The actions taken during the meeting up to the moment of the procedural intervention are fully legally valid and are an integral part of the deliberation,” he states.
Room for adjustment of the Rules of Order
In his statement, Adhin further points out that similar situations have also occurred in previous parliamentary terms. The meeting was also opened on the basis of the established quorum, while the chairman later placed his name on the attendance list. According to him, this has never led to doubts in the past about the legality of meetings or the validity of decisions taken.
At the same time, the chairman acknowledges that there may be a need for further elaboration of the role of the chairman with regard to the attendance list. If parliament deems this desirable, he believes this can be included in the announced revision of the rules of procedure. Until then, according to Adhin, the current text will remain in force. According to him, this does not provide any basis for declaring Monday’s meeting invalid.
In an additional explanation, he emphasizes that the obligation to sign the attendance list applies to all members, including the chairman. However, according to him, failure by one member to fulfill this obligation on time does not affect the legality of the opening of the meeting, as long as the required quorum of 26 signed members is present.
