Debate has emerged over a procedural change requiring requests for official parliamentary records to be routed through the Speaker, with critics questioning its implications for transparency.
However, House Speaker Claudius Francis has dismissed those concerns by responding to one critic in particular, insisting the measure is a standard administrative step rather than a restriction on access.
“That the Speaker is inserting himself in records that are public, that is not the case,” Francis said. Drawing a comparison with media organizations, he added, “In any business, you cannot go to DBS or HTS and just ask a reporter to give you a copy of last night’s report. The request must be made to the manager.”
Francis emphasized that the requirement does not equate to refusal of access.
“It does not mean the request will be refused,” he stated. “The clerk told Mr. Mayers that explicitly, that even though the request is going to be addressed to the Speaker, there is no possibility of a refusal. It is just for the record.”
The Speaker further noted that similar procedures have long been observed in formal requests for parliamentary transcripts, particularly in legal contexts.
“High Court judges, through the registrar of the High Court, have requested copies of Hansard because whenever you are going to interpret legislation and you are unsure, the judges like to have what was the intention of Parliament,” he explained. “A written document is sent and we comply.”
He added that such requests have consistently been honored across a range of applicants.
“Banks have requested, individual lawyers… have written. Not once have those requests been denied,” Francis said.
Addressing claims that the process represents a new or restrictive development, the Speaker argued that authentication has always been a necessary requirement.
“The courts will not accept something called Hansard without the authentication of the presiding officer. That is the rule,” he stated.
Francis also rejected assertions that the change places undue control in the hands of the presiding officer.
“To suggest the Parliament is under the thumb of the presiding officer is nothing but a lie,” he said.
The issue has sparked wider discussion on access to public records and the balance between administrative procedure and openness, as stakeholders continue to assess the implications of the requirement.