Hughes' argument on proportionality principle irrelevant

On the government’s move to the courts over AFC/APNU’s blatant trampling of the constitutionally protected Proportionality Principle in parliamentary committees, Freddie Kissoon recently put in his two cents worth. He quoted Attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes and of course makes the same fatal mistake of irrelevancy.

Hughes, and now Kissoon, wanted to know why the PPP hasn’t used the principle of proportionality to make appointments to bodies outside of parliament: Hughes cited ambassadorial appointments and Kissoon dragged in the UG Council. The simple answer is that the criteria for these appointments do not require, much less demand, proportionality – constitutionally defined or otherwise! Irrelevant, immaterial and irresponsible! But if Kissoon and Hughes and the Opposition want the principle of proportionality applied elsewhere, how come they never mention the Disciplined Forces, where parliament has already mandated it?
Where it was demanded, the PPP has always complied with proportionality. Within parliament the PPP followed the principle – the deputy speaker was always from the Opposition – when they were not boycotting, of course! The parliamentary Management Committees, the Standing Committees, the Select Committees and the Sectoral Committees all had their proportionate share of opposition members.