JAMAICA | Brown-Burke, the Mace, "Blood and Fire" Comrades

By O. Dave Allen

MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica, April 29, 2026 - The removal of Dr Angela Brown-Burke from the House of Representatives during Tuesday’s debate on the NaRRA Bill should not be treated merely as a moment of parliamentary disorder. It must also be understood within Jamaica’s long and turbulent history of protest inside and outside the legislature.

Brown-Burke is not an accidental political figure. She comes from the radical tradition of protest within the People’s National Party Youth Organisation. She is now chairman of the PNP, but the instincts of that earlier movement — resistance, confrontation, and refusal to quietly accept overreach — remain part of her political DNA. The blood and fire comrade was aroused 

The House deliberations on the NaRRA Bill descended into chaos after what appeared to be an attempt by Dr Brown-Burke to remove or interfere with the ceremonial mace, the symbol of Parliament’s authority. The precise nature of her interaction with the mace was not immediately clear, but Speaker Juliet Holness ruled that the conduct crossed a line and ordered her removal for disorderly conduct.

The Speaker was emphatic. “At no time can you grab the mace in Parliament. Not even in jest… and not in protest either.” In the rules of Westminster parliamentary order, she is correct. The mace is the ceremonial symbol of the authority of Parliament. To interfere with it is to strike at the dignity and order of the House itself.

But Jamaica’s political history does not allow us to read such moments only through the dry language of procedure.

In 1950, F. L. B. Evans removed the ceremonial mace from the Jamaican House of Representatives in protest against Speaker Clifford Campbell. That dramatic act was meant to disrupt proceedings, because the removal of the mace symbolically suspends the authority of the House. Evans understood the power of symbolism. He did not merely speak against authority; he physically challenged the emblem through which that authority was expressed.

That history matters.

It does not mean that every act involving the mace should be excused. Parliament cannot function if members are allowed to descend into chaos whenever tempers rise. But neither should we pretend that parliamentary protest has no place in Jamaica’s democratic tradition. The PNP itself was born out of protest, labour struggle, anti-colonial agitation, and the demand that power be made accountable to the people.

The NaRRA Bill has clearly touched a raw nerve. It is being debated in a climate of distrust, with concerns that the legislation may concentrate too much power in the hands of the Executive under the cover of national reconstruction and resilience. If the Government believes the Bill is necessary, it must also accept that extraordinary legislation requires extraordinary scrutiny.

What unfolded in the House was not Jamaica’s finest moment. Prime Minister Andrew Holness was right to say that, years from now, the scene may not be remembered among Parliament’s best. But the Government should also ask itself why the debate reached that boiling point in the first place.

Parliamentary dignity is not preserved only by disciplining Opposition members. It is preserved by ensuring that major legislation is not rushed, that dissent is not dismissed, and that the Opposition is not treated as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a constitutional force to be respected.

Brown-Burke’s apparent attempt to remove or interfere with the mace was immediately treated by the Speaker as a serious breach of parliamentary order. Her suspension may satisfy the rules of the House, but it will not settle the deeper question: is the NaRRA Bill being handled in a manner that builds public confidence, or in a manner that deepens suspicion?

Jamaica’s democracy has always carried within it two traditions — order and protest. The mace represents one. Evans represented the other. Brown-Burke’s removal from the chamber reminds us that the old struggle between authority and resistance is still alive.

The Government may control the numbers in Parliament. The Speaker may control the order of the House. But no government should confuse order with consent. When a Bill of national consequence provokes such fierce resistance, wisdom demands pause, consultation, and humility.

The mace may remain in place, but the legitimacy of Parliament rests not in ceremony alone. It rests in whether the people believe power is being exercised in their interest.

O. Dave Allen 

-30-