KINGSTON, Jamaica — A disagreement between Speaker of the House Juliet Holness and Opposition Leader Mark Golding over the circumstances surrounding a proposed Crown Lands Reform Bill resurfaced in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, with both maintaining conflicting accounts of what prevented the legislation from being introduced before Parliament’s summer recess.

Holness used her opening remarks to address what she described as an outstanding matter from July involving Golding’s proposed Crown Lands Reform Act 2026.

Later in the day, Golding issued a video statement after saying he was unable to address the matter immediately in the Chamber and had been told he would have an opportunity to speak during Public Business later in the sitting.

At the centre of the disagreement is whether Golding’s attempt to introduce the private member’s Bill was improperly prevented from proceeding or whether the matter was delayed because of unresolved constitutional issues identified during Parliament’s review process.

Holness told the House that Golding sought on July 3 to have the Bill introduced at the next sitting, after which Parliament’s legal counsel identified three provisions that raised constitutional concerns.

She said Golding revised the legislation shortly before midnight on July 13, resolving two of those concerns, but one issue relating to section 55(3) of the Constitution remained outstanding when the House met on July 14.

“The issue was a constitutional one in respect of breaches to section 55, which places limits on the circumstances in which this House may proceed with certain measures. Requiring compliance with the Constitution is not obstruction, it is the responsibility and duty of the Chair,” she said.

Holness said criticism of the Speaker was legitimate but argued that it must accurately reflect what occurred.

“Where material facts are omitted and the proper discharge of constitutional responsibility is presented as political interference, there is a risk of undermining the public confidence in the very Parliament itself,” she said.

Golding maintained his long-held position that he was prevented from introducing the Bill and questioned whether the Speaker should determine constitutional issues surrounding proposed legislation.

He argued that constitutional questions should instead be dealt with through parliamentary debate or by the Attorney General’s Chambers during the legislative process.

“I don’t think it’s her business to be trying to arbitrate the constitutionality of legislation. That can be raised in the House in the debate on the bill, or indeed by the Attorney General’s chambers, who are the ones who have to certify for the Governor General, before he gives his assent to legislation, after the parliamentary process, that the bill is or is not constitutional,” Golding said.

The proposed legislation has become one of the Opposition leader’s signature land-reform initiatives. It would reduce the period required for adverse possession claims on Crown lands from 60 years to 25 years, while retaining the existing 12-year period that applies to private land.

The Bill would also create a mechanism allowing disaster-hit communities, including those affected by Hurricane Melissa, to be designated disaster adjudication areas, enabling land ownership claims to be resolved more quickly where entitlement can be established.