Jamaica’s Parliament is no stranger to accusations of bias from the Chair. The latest flashpoint surrounds Mrs Juliet Holness, the Member of Parliament (MP) for St Andrew East Rural who was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives in September 2023 and returned to the post in 2025.

Her tenure has been marked by friction with the Opposition, whose members have repeatedly questioned her neutrality. While some argue that the case with Mrs Holness, the wife of the prime minister, is grounded in personal critique, we see it more as a structural issue.

In previous years Speakers on both sides have faced similar allegations, suggesting a deeper flaw in the system rather than in any individual office holder.

As Jamaica inches toward constitutional reform, it may be time to confront an uncomfortable question: Can true impartiality be expected from a Speaker who is, by design, a political actor?

Under Jamaica’s current constitutional arrangement, the Speaker must be an MP. That requirement, while rooted in Westminster tradition, carries an inherent tension. An MP is elected on a party ticket, shaped by partisan battles, and accountable to constituents who expect advocacy, not neutrality. Even when elevated to the Chair, the political DNA does not simply dissolve. The result is a role that demands strict fairness but is occupied by someone forged in political contest.

Other jurisdictions have recognised this contradiction and adapted. In Ghana, the Speaker may be chosen from outside the elected membership, allowing for a presiding officer unburdened by constituency pressures or party loyalties. Singapore permits a non-MP Speaker qualified for election, while smaller territories such as Cayman Islands and Gibraltar have long embraced similar models. In these systems, the Speaker functions less as a political figure and more as a high-ranking parliamentary referee — chosen for expertise, temperament, and independence.

The advantages are not trivial. A non-elected Speaker, particularly one drawn from the senior ranks of the civil service or legal profession, would likely bring deep procedural knowledge and a professional commitment to neutrality. Crucially, such an individual would not be beholden to a constituency or party hierarchy. Their legitimacy would derive not from electoral victory, but from competence and the confidence of the entire House.

Critics will argue that this would sever the Speaker from democratic accountability. But that concern can be mitigated by the Speaker being elected or approved by MPs, subject to removal, and required to meet the same constitutional qualifications as any parliamentarian. Accountability, in this sense, shifts from partisan loyalty to institutional integrity.

The British model offers a partial remedy: Once elected, the Speaker resigns from his/her party and operates above the political fray. Yet even there the individual remains an MP, with all the historical baggage that entails.

Jamaica, unbound by rigid tradition in this moment of reform, has the opportunity to go further. Of course, such a shift would require constitutional amendment. The current prohibition against civil servants sitting in Parliament would have to be revisited and careful safeguards crafted to preserve independence. But constitutional reform is precisely the forum for bold, corrective thinking.

The recurring disputes between Government and Opposition over the Speaker’s conduct are not mere political theatre; they erode public confidence in the fairness of parliamentary proceedings. If every ruling is viewed through a partisan lens, the authority of the Chair — and by extension, the credibility of the House — is diminished.

Reform is often framed as an abstract exercise in legal drafting. It should also be a practical effort to fix what plainly is not working. On the question of the Speaker’s impartiality, Jamaica’s experience offers a clear lesson: Expecting neutrality from a partisan foundation may be asking too much.

A non-elected Speaker would not be a panacea, but it could be a meaningful step towards a Parliament that commands confidence not just from those who hold power, but from those who challenge it — and from the public watching both.