You Know Who You Talking To?
By Gbe Sneh
It is becoming too common that some members of the legislature do not hesitate to echo sentiments of the old “You Know Who You Talking To”. While these legislators are refraining from the usage of this phrase, their reactions to public utterances directed at them tacitly echo this abhorrent phrase.
Here we go again: “Speaker Snowe and members of the Lower House in their session yesterday said the LPRC boss has insulted the entire Plenary by describing the Speaker's statement as "rubbish" and that his latest allegation against that August body has brought the entire House to public ridicule. Mr. Harry Greaves will have to appear before this Plenary to give reasons why he has to insulted us…” (Analyst, Monrovia, Liberia)
Is the House of Representatives really serious about citing Mr. Greaves to plenary because he opined that a statement made by Mr. Snowe is “rubbish”? My people, let anyone, just anyone, answer this question: Does Jobo have any recourse in our courts for saying whatever to Fatu and she files back, “RUBBISH!”? Jobo knows it would be futile to sue Fatu in the courts.
Speaker Snowe and his people better drop this charge, because to press forward with it in plenary would subject a citizen to harassment, an infringement on his rights to “FREEDOM OF SPEECH/EXPRESSION”, entitlement to one’s opinion. So, on what grounds is the House citing Mr. Greaves? Oh, it is because his statement was directed at the Speaker of The House Of Representatives, RL. All rise. The House’s citation is tantamount to an attempt to censor not only Mr. Reeves but the general public. Are these “lawmakers” aware that their position (an opinion is an insult) will not have a leg to stand on in the courts? Go ahead, call Associate Justice Ja’neh.
Does the Constitution frown on one’s opinion? No, the Constitution guarantees one’s “FREEDOM OF SPEECH/EXPRESSION”.
What the House of Representatives should do is dig into the circumstances that prompted Mr. Greaves' opinion. A called House plenary would serve the public well, if it dealt with the findings of the EC Audit On LPRC. After all, Mr. Snowe had fed his peers and the public with some information that, when he headed the LPRC during the NTGL, he remitted one millions dollars to GOL. And on the basis of that the Lower House inserted into the national budget one million dollars as a revenue source from LPRC.
Let the House give Mr. Snowe a small “Peer Review” on this issue, since the information he gave them, information on which they relied to conduct business, has been vehemently dubbed “rubbish”. Wouldn’t the House want to know whether Mr. Snowe told the truth or not? Which is in the best interest of House and the people they represent, seeking the truth or harassing a citizen solely on the basis of his honest opinion?
To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html