By Val Matthias. Updated 11:56 a.m., Monday, January 26, 2026, Atlantic Standard Time (GMT-4).
Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves has publicly voiced alarm over what he describes as persistent obstruction of parliamentary accountability. Appearing on Star FM 98.3 this morning, Gonsalves revealed that three of his questions intended for oral response were dismissed by the Speaker as inadmissible.
He further noted that four additional questions submitted for written answers remain unanswered, stressing that written submissions are governed by different rules and should permit more detailed explanations.
In a decisive move, Gonsalves confirmed he has formally addressed the newly appointed Governor-General on the matter, declaring that he will not “lay down” or allow the issue to fade without challenge. His stance comes as the nation prepares for the upcoming parliamentary session scheduled for January 29th, 2026, where he insists accountability must be upheld.
Letter to the Speaker of the House of Assembly from Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves:
25th January, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Hon. Ronnia Durham-Balcombe
Speaker of the House of Assembly
Temporary Parliament Building
Glen
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
RE: RULING OF INADMISSIBILITY OF PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
I write concerning your ruling of “inadmissibility” of each of the three questions for oral answer which I posed to members of the government to be answered by them at the sitting of the
Parliament of St. Vincent and the Grenadines on January 29, 2026.
I disagree profoundly with your ruling in each case and accordingly request a favourable reconsideration of your decisions. In the alternative, I suggest that you permit the questions to be
listed on the Order Paper and, in the interest of parliamentary democracy and an alive constitutionalism, you invite the honourable gentlemen to whom the questions are posed to answer
or decline to answer; there is ample sound precedent in this regard going back in excess of 30 years
in our House of Assembly.
In any event, Standing Order 20(2) of the House of Assembly Standing Orders, 1989, affords you the discretion that each question be “entered in the Order Book with such alterations as the Speaker
may direct”; I thus suggest that you reflect on this option. If your directed alterations do not meet with my approval, I may choose, as the elected member for North Central Windward, to demur in posing the question(s) as altered.
My above request and suggestions are made in accord with the following relevant factual/legal matrices, and considerations:
(A) AUTHORITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF SPEAKER
1. It is accepted that my right to ask a question is subject to the general rules as laid down in the Standing Orders, “the interpretation of which the Speaker shall be the sole judge”. [Standing Order 20(1)]. In interpreting the “general rules”, a wise Speaker, among other
things, seeks the aid of the practice of our House of Assembly, and in “cases of doubt” the Standing Orders of our House “shall be interpreted in light of the relevant practice of the Commons, House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” [Standing Order
82(1)].
2. The chief characteristics of the Speaker, as Presiding Officer of the House, are authority and impartiality. The authority in the Chair is fortified by formal rules and conventions. Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that her impartiality is generally
recognised [See Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice: Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament [21st Edition, 1989].
3. The issue of “confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker” is always alive in the context where the Speaker is, or has been recently, engaged in partisan politics. In your case, you hold or have recently held the office of President of the Women’s Arm of the New Democratic Party (NDP) which constitutes the government. You, too, in the recent general elections campaign have been a major speaker on the NDP platform, laced with politicallypartisan vitriol. This issue of “confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker” is exacerbated by the intensity of competitive politics in a small multi-island society, overlayed by partisan familial relations/connections.
4. It is well-established that the interpretation by the Speaker of the “orderliness” or “admissibility” of parliamentary questions should not be allowed to become unduly restrictive [May’s Parliamentary Practice, op.cit., page 287].
(B) THE IMPORTANCE OF PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
1. One of the principal means of holding a government to account in a parliamentary democracy is “question time” exercised by the parliamentary opposition. During the time
of the Unity Labour Party (ULP) administration (March 29, 2001 to November 27, 2026) this was fully recognised. My government encouraged this in the following path-breaking
ways through: (a) Allocating at every sitting in excess of four hours to “questions for oral answer”; (b) Encouraging successive Speakers not to be “unduly restrictive” in interpreting
in “the general rules” on questions; (c) Answering questions which on the face of it clearly flouted “the general rules”, especially in relation to those of “excessive length” [Standing Order 20(1)(e)], “factual issues” [Standing Order 20(1)(b) and (c)], “opinions/legal/hypothetical propositions” [Standing Order 20(1)(h)], “arguments, inferences, imputations etc.” [Standing Order 20(1)(f)]; and (d) Broadcasting on all media
platforms the entire proceedings of every sitting of Parliament, an excellent democratic innovation.
2. In a House of Assembly with a lopsided majority for the government (14 Representatives, 4 Senators, and the Attorney General) as against the opposition (1 Representative and 2
Senators), a Speaker who comes from an activist NDP stable ought to be alert to the real possibility that an overly-restrictive interpretation of “the general rules” would inevitably
engender a not unreasonable impression, in the public sphere, whether correct or not, that
the Speaker’s “impartiality” is at least suspect. This impression/suspicion, in time, metamorphoses into a settled belief of the Speaker’s lack of impartiality. In the process, public confidence in the Speaker is irretrievably undermined.
3. It is inescapable in all the circumstances for the impression in the public sphere to become quickly pervasive that the Speaker is shielding the government from answering questions that it would rather not answer. The inevitable query arises: “What, if anything, does the
government want to hide from the public in Parliament?”
4. A restrictive or restricted Parliamentary process invariably leads to extra-Parliamentary options, which may not otherwise be exercised.
(C) THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES
1. It is plainly evident, on any view that is not jaundiced or ill-advised, that my Question (1) does not infringe Standing Order 20(1)(e) as adjudged by you. This Rule states that: “Not more than one subject be referred to one question and a question shall not be made of excessive length.” It is obvious that one subject was addressed: “His Majesty’s Prisons”.
The four parts of the question are designed to facilitate a coherent, succinct, and non lengthy answer. Please note that at the end of each part of the question is a semi-colon; at the end of the question is the grammatically-correct question mark consistent with the one
subject rule.
2. It is pellucid that my Question(2) on “an abnormal presence of swarming flies across St. Vincent and the Grenadines” does not infringe Standing Order 20(1)(b) and (c) as adjudged by you. These Rules are as follows:
“(b) A question shall not include names of persons or any statements of facts, unless they be necessary to render the question intelligible”.
“(c) If a question contains a statement of fact, the member asking it shall make himself responsible for the accuracy of the statement, and no question shall be based upon a newspaper report or upon an unofficial publication.”
My question has not named anyone; and I stated a fact to render the question intelligible. Science begins and ends with observation. In the six or so weeks after November 28, 2025, I have travelled across SVG and observed this “abnormal swarming of flies”; numerous persons with whom I have engaged on this matter have also so observed. This factor has been observable by all sentient persons; it had not been reported by any newspaper or radio, and I challenged them on this at a press briefing on December 15, 2025; and no official
statement has been made on this fact for which I am responsible in raising publicly and through Parliament. This is a notorious fact, currently observable; and the swarming flies are a “public health hazard”. There is no requirement for a Speaker to treat matters of this kind in a narrow, legalistic manner as in adversarial court proceedings.
May’s Parliamentary Practice (at page 287) addresses this issue under the rubric “Factual Basis” as follows:
“The facts on which a question is based may be set out as briefly as practicable
within the framework of a question provided the Member asking it makes himself responsible for their accuracy… Where the facts are of sufficient moment the Speaker has required prima facie proof of their authenticity.”
But, with great respect, the Speaker cannot rule a question “inadmissible” because she is unaware of a notorious fact. I hope I have satisfied you on this matter. In any event, why not allow the Minister of Health to answer a straightforward question?
3. In respect of Question(3) addressing “the role of the Prime Minister’s son as his aide/assistant”, you have ruled it inadmissible as infringing Standing Order 20(1)(e) to which I have earlier adverted. It is evident that you are labouring under a misapprehension
of the applicable Rule. I have referred to “one subject”, that is, “the role of the Prime Minister’s son as aide/assistant.” The question has several parts, but it is obviously one question. Again, it is framed to elicit an intelligible, concise, non-lengthy answer. Why not simply allow the Prime Minister to answer a straightforward question on an issue about which the general public is rightly exercised.
(D) GENERAL COMMENTS
Whether or not you accede to my requests, suggestions, and representations, these matters will
be ventilated fully in and out of the House of Assembly in one form or another.
I thus advise that you view these matters through the lens of the reasonable man and woman, the man on the Colonarie omnibus or the woman vending in the Kingstown Market, without recourse to excessive legal rigidities, overly-restrictive interpretations of “general rules”, while being cognizant of the practice of the House of Assembly certainly over the last 32 years of my lived experience as a Representative, the requisites of parliamentary democracy, and all relevant extant circumstances.
Finally, I ask you to consider this: What would the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organization of American States (OAS), the Commonwealth, the United Nations, and most of all the people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines think about any attempt to muzzle the lone opposition Representative in the Parliament of our country through your adverse rulings which I have respectfully addressed?
Please note that I consider that your judgments of “inadmissibility” of two of the three questions posed by Senator Carlos James, and one of the three asked by Senator Keisal Peters ought similarly to be reviewed.
All the best to you and your family. All the best to you for the New Year.
Sincerely,
Ralph E. Gonsalves
MP, North Central Windward
Leader of the Opposition
END
One News SVG 