KINGSTON, Jamaica — Speaker of the House of Representatives Juliet Holness has described the walkout by Opposition members during Tuesday’s sitting as a “breach of parliamentary decorum” and an action that “undermines the interests of the people of Jamaica”.

“The subsequent walkout by members of the Opposition was absolutely regrettable, to say the least. But worse are an affront to the proper order of the House, a breach of parliamentary decorum and, ultimately, an action that undermines the interests of the people of Jamaica, whom we are all elected to serve,” Holness said in a statement just before the adjournment of the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The walkout was led by Opposition Leader Mark Golding after he was cut off mid-statement by Holness.

READ: Golding leads Opposition walkout from House after speaker repeatedly shuts down questions

Golding had risen to his feet to query why Opposition members were not being allowed to ask questions in relation to a statement made by Environment Minister Matthew Samuda, regarding the approaching tropical storm which could impact the island in the next 48 hours.

The Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) for St Mary South Eastern, Christopher Brown, was repeatedly asked to take his seat by the House Speaker as she refused to let him ask a question about outstanding payments to contractors.

However, Holness noted that the question raised by Brown was “out of order” and not in accordance with the Standing Orders.

“The disruption today arose during a statement by ministers when a member of the Opposition attempted to introduce a matter that was procedurally improper. The question posed by the member of South East St Mary clearly related to payment to contractors and  settlement of invoices, which are outside of the allowed questions based on the statement by the minister,” she said.

“Having assessed the content of the question and against the relevant rules, it was determined out of order as the subject matter was not within the official cognisance of the minister tasked with responding to the question and therefore breached the rules governing the propriety and content of questions presented to the House,” she continued.

Holness, who also described the action of the Opposition members as regrettable, further explained that her ruling was based on the provisions of the Standing Orders.

“Standing Order 16.1a provides that the proper object of the question is to obtain information on a question of fact within the official cognisance of the minister to whom it is addressed, or to ask for official action. And standing order 16-1G, subsections 8 and 11, prohibit questions asking whether statements in the press or by private individuals, including contractors, are accurate or questions concerning the actions of the minister for which he is not responsible to the legislature,” Holness informed the House.

She further outlined that Standing Order 16-1H further prohibits questions that solicit an opinion or pose a hypothetical proposition.

“Following that clear and justified ruling, both the leader of the Opposition and the leader of Opposition business rose at separate intervals and attempted to make unsolicited statements challenging the ruling and the conduct of the sittings. This was especially concerning given that the leader of Opposition business had previously approached the bench, where the Speaker suggested that we suspend the sitting to discuss a reasonable way forward, and he refused. Instead of finding an amicable solution, efforts were made to continue the matter publicly in defiance of the ruling. It was a clear attempt to usurp or publicly undermine the authority of the Speaker,” Holness said.