Debate contribution: Rule of Law

Debate contribution by Mr Keith Buchanan on 20 October 2026.

MLA

Mr Keith Buchanan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 October 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Rule of Law

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5801094

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I agree. I think that the Member referred to Orangemen only worrying about the rule of law. The rule of law is relevant to the 1·92 million people in Northern Ireland, not just a handful of Orangemen. Maybe he is a bit confused about that, but the law is for everyone. It does not matter who you are, the law is for absolutely everyone, so it is not right for the Member to play the Orange card all the time. Today, we are debating whether that principle applies equally to everyone, including our Ministers. The answer must be yes. No one is above the law. No one is exempt from it. No political cause can justify breaking it. The rule of law is not an optional extra. It is a condition of this place, which some people do not believe. It is not a principle to embrace when it is politically convenient and to abandon when it is not. A few weeks ago, the law came down on the side of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin adored it. It loved it. The A5 ruling was great. Its Members were out waving flags. It was great. When the law went the other way, however, it was not happy with it. You cannot have it both ways, guys. It is one or the other. Do you uphold the rule of law or not? A few weeks back, the new Ireland that will embrace everyone was promoted through a showroom on the Garvaghy Road. Everybody on the Garvaghy Road — dissident republicans, terrorists and those from the SDLP and People Before Profit — was holding hands like 'Ring a Ring o' Rosie'. It was quite clear to the average person, Joe Public, in Northern Ireland where you are at now with your new Ireland. It is dead in the water. People have woken up and realised that it is dead in the water. We have all clearly seen that for ourselves. For anyone who thought that there would be space for my tradition in that new Ireland, the hand-holding on the Garvaghy Road made it very clear.

I agree with the Member. Thank you. Without the rule of law, there can be no equality, justice, public confidence or effective government. The DUP will never accept a situation in which politicians make laws for everyone else but consider themselves exempt from them. There can be no special rules for Sinn Féin — absolutely not. There can be no immunity for its elected representatives — absolutely not. There can be no circumstances in which mob rule — yes, mob rule — is allowed to replace the law. Take a wee look on Google, and you will see that mob rule refers to a large, disorderly crowd that breaks the law. Whether or not some were playing the bodrán is irrelevant. Breaking the law with a crowd of people is mob rule. Have a wee Google when you get the opportunity.

You can do so while I am speaking, because you will not get an intervention.

Everyone must be equal before the law, regardless of their political party, background or the office that they hold. It must have that effect for everyone. That is why the events on the Garvaghy Road were so serious. It is not simply a disagreement about a parade. It has become a test of political leadership and respect for lawful authority. Sadly, the First Minister failed that test. She 100% failed. The ministerial code requires Ministers to support the rule of law in word and action, yet Michelle O'Neill, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all, refused to comply with police directions and, indeed, gave her own. The Bobby Storey funeral and now Garvaghy Road have shown that, if abiding by the law was a thing for Sinn Féin, it has now obviously gone. What message does that send to the public? How can Ministers and MLAs ask their constituents to respect the rule of law while suggesting that there are occasions when it can simply be disregarded? Sinn Féin Ministers frequently speak about respect, rights and equality — gone. Those principles are important, but respect, rights and equality can exist only where there is respect for the rule of law. There cannot be one rule for ordinary people and another for those who hold high office. The questions surrounding Deirdre Hargey's position on the Policing Board are equally serious. The board exists to uphold confidence in policing, and its members are required to demonstrate leadership and integrity. The board's code of conduct requires members who become the subject of a criminal investigation to:

"without delay inform the Chairperson."

No, you are OK. I am tight for time. Thank you. Public confidence demands that those standards are adhered to and proper procedures followed. Public office carries responsibilities alongside privileges. Most political parties, when faced with wrongdoing by their representatives, understand that action must be taken, yet the perception has developed that some politicians believe that accountability applies only to others and that they are above the law, because it is not relevant to them. Democracy depends not only on elections but on accountability. Finally, public confidence also requires transparency. Confidence is strengthened when the public can see that decisions are being taken fairly and consistently and that they are based on evidence. The Justice Minister must not ignore the serious issues that have arisen and must be prepared to use the powers that are available to her, should circumstances require it. This debate is about more than one protest and one political party; it is about whether we genuinely believe that nobody is above the law. Those who make our laws must obey them. Those who hold public office must lead by example.

Those who undermine public confidence must —

— be held to account.

972 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 23 October 2026 at 12:25 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.