Yesterday, the Free National Movement (FNM) staged a protest that had been anticipated for weeks. The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), true to form, dismissed it as unnecessary noise. Yet, what unfolded in the House of Assembly was beyond anyone’s imagination—a spectacle where tensions boiled over, and chaos reigned supreme.

If not for a humble glass of water, we might have witnessed an unprecedented assault on the Speaker of the House, Patricia Deveaux. Let’s raise our glasses to this unsung hero—the object that “saved” the Speaker from harm.

This incident can be broken down into two separate incidences; one that highlights the questions surrounding the professional aptitude and perceived biased of the Speaker in managing the House’s proceedings and the other that addresses the issue Mace incidence.

The Speaker’s professional aptitude and perceived bias:

“Speaker: I feared for my life” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Speaker of the House of Assembly Patricia Deveaux said yesterday she feared for her life and was “assaulted” and “almost hit” when Free National Movement (FNM) Deputy Leader Shanendon Cartwright grabbed the mace sitting in front of her and hurled it out of the House of Assembly’s window.

Deputy Speaker Sylvanus Petty received “a blow to the head” during the incident, prompting him to go to the hospital and a police officer was hurt in the leg, she said.

“This is a dark day in this political arena that we call politics,” said Deveaux when the House of Assembly resumed after a 15-minute recess following the chaotic event.

 “For the first time in my life, when I took the oath of office, I felt challenged and I was in fear for my life. I will review the tapes and I will apprise the country later of my findings, but during today’s event I was assaulted, I was almost hit. Thank God for a glass of water in the front of me.”

At this moment we will all stand and raise our glasses for the glass of water that “saved” the Speaker from being assaulted, let us move on.

First, as the Speaker speaks to feeling challenged, I would just like to suggest that The Speaker has been “challenged” from the very moment that she was named as Speaker of The House; whether this challenge is mentally or professionally, I leave this up to the reader.

It simply amazes me the manner in which the “facts” are coming together concerning this matter in the House of Assembly yesterday and the manner in which the Progressive Liberal Party Members of Parliament and it’s supporters wish now to paint them as a planned act of aggression of the Free National Movement (FNM) toward the Speaker of The House.

Let me just say, as it pertains to the accusation of the actions being planned, I would think that they were just as well planned as the formers Commissioners of Police (CoP) address to the nation the other night and it this is the case then the Free National Movement (FNM) may want to be better at pre-planning.

My opinion of yesterday’s events are formed from this report of events leading up to the moment.

The Hon. Michael Pintard sent a letter to the Speaker last week to speak.  She said she received it five (5) minutes too late.  He begged her to accommodate him and the House adjourned while he was on his feet.

Yesterday, Pintard said he sent a letter a day in advance along with his script but did not get an answer.

After the Prime Minister spoke, he requested to speak and the Speaker again ignored him. He kept asking if he would get an opportunity to speak.  She never gave him an answer.

The Hon. Michael Pintard found out they were going to adjourn the House after the Hon. Wayne Munroe spoke.

This is what I have been reliably informed led up to the events yesterday.

If these are the actual facts then it would appear that the Speaker is running the House of Assembly like it is her private space but is because of her “challenged” mental and/or professionally capacity or at “someone’s” instruction?

The Mace Incident:

 Cartwright’s removal of the mace has been painted by the PLP as an aggressive act, but its historical symbolism suggests otherwise. The mace represents the authority of the Speaker. By removing it, the Opposition effectively called for an end to the Speaker’s oversight—a procedural move rather than an attack.

The Speaker’s reaction—claiming fear for her life—rings hollow against the backdrop of events. If her actions in the House were fair and just, why would such an outburst even occur? Instead, her tenure has been marked by accusations of bias, overreach, and suppression of opposition voices. Yesterday’s dramatic events reflect deeper cracks in the PLP’s governance style.

To compare, imagine a referee in a football game who consistently favors one team. Eventually, the players on the other side will refuse to play along. Removing the “mace” is akin to walking off the field—not an act of aggression, but a rejection of perceived unfairness.

The PLP’s response to this incident reveals their inherent flaw: an inability to self-reflect. Instead of addressing grievances, they double down, painting the Opposition as aggressors. This tactic may rally their base, but it leaves the country divided and distrustful.

As for Speaker Deveaux, her claim of being “saved” by a glass of water has become a symbol—not of her victimhood, but of a moment when politics reached the height of absurdity. It’s a sobering reminder that theatrics cannot substitute for leadership.

Let us raise our metaphorical glasses—not to the glass of water, but to the hope that reason, fairness, and true democratic principles will one day prevail in the House of Assembly.

The speaker need not be in “fear for her life” if she knows that what she is doing is right and fair but it seems that this has not been her agenda from day one, she has been nothing but a ‘bully” especially to the Opposition Leader and why should he or anyone else tolerate such treatment any longer?

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END