After claims by APNU Leader…. AG jettisons talk of constitutional crisis as a result of prorogation
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall

TALK of a constitutional crisis, following the prorogation of Parliament on November 10 by President Donald Ramotar, has once again surfaced; this time in comments made by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Leader, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger.

Leader of the Opposition, David Granger
Leader of the Opposition, David Granger

In recent comments to the media Granger contended that the prorogation of Parliament represents a “serious constitutional” problem.
However, Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, maintains that a constitutional crisis cannot be created by acting in accordance with provisions made in Guyana’s Constitution.
“I reject the notion that there is anything unlawful or undemocratic about prorogation,” Nandlall told the Guyana Chronicle, in an invited comment.
Article 70 (1) of the Constitution states that: “The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue Parliament.”
He added that Prorogation has been a concept with the British Constitutional system for nearly 1,000 years.
“It was bequeathed to every country in the British Commonwealth upon their attainment of Independence. It has been widely used over the years without the big hue and cry, which it has generated in Guyana. In Canada, for example, it has been used twice over the last seven years. Only last year it was used in Australia. I do not recall those who are critical of its use in Guyana, being similarly critical when it was employed in these countries,” he said.

CONSTITUTIONAL RECOURSES
The Attorney General contends that in the same way the Alliance For Change (AFC), supported by the APNU, sought to make use of the constitutionally provided for recourse of a no-confidence motion, President Ramotar sought recourse in another constitutionally provided for mechanism, which is prorogation.
He said, “The very constitution which provides for a no-confidence motion provides for prorogation. One option cannot be right and the other wrong, one option cannot be democratic and the other undemocratic.
“The truth is that the no-confidence motion was intended to defeat the Government and it is lawful, democratic and constitutional to do so. The Government took a pre-emptive strike. It prorogued Parliament and defeated the no-confidence motion and it is equally lawful, democratic and constitutional for the Government to do so.”
He also dismissed the hullaballoo created by the combined Opposition over illegal spending, among other issues.
“Significantly, all monies spent during this period will have to be accounted for whenever Parliament resumes. All the other oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in respect of the monies spent during this period. The role of the Auditor General, the role of the Judiciary and of the other oversight agencies are unaffected by prorogation,” Nandlall stressed.
In proroguing Parliament, President Ramotar was also emphatic that the move to prorogation would have kept the 10th Parliament alive, which currently has several critically important matters before it.
The effect of ending the first session of the 10th Parliament via prorogation is the termination of the business of the National Assembly.
As a result the AFC sponsored no-confidence motion was not considered. Also, APNU had, prior to November 10, signalled its intent to support the push through of the motion. Had it not been for the proclamation to prorogue Parliament, if the no-confidence motion was passed, Guyana would have been headed to early general elections within three months.
However, President Ramotar has made it clear that if these efforts prove futile, there will be a move to early general elections; the last general elections having been held in November 2011.

MERITS IN DIALOGUE
The Attorney General was firm in stressing that there are merits in dialogue, the intention of the President’s decision to prorogue Parliament.
“If the opportunities that prorogation presents for constructive engagement and dialogue are rejected by the Opposition then the nation would have seen whether they are really interested in dialogue and consensus building or whether their public pronouncements of these matters are idle rhetoric,” he said.
Despite some optimism within the current Administration that the door to dialogue is not closed, the APNU and AFC has repeatedly publicly said that there will be no talks unless Parliament is reconvened.
The combined Opposition has also rejected President Donald Ramotar’s invitation, issued via a letter on November 18, for talks.
Some of the matters currently before the 10th Parliament include the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) (Amendment) Bill, which is in Parliamentary Special Select Committee; the second readings of the Education Bill 2014, the Land Surveyors Bill 2014 and the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2014 are up for a second reading. Also among the Bills scheduled for a first reading are the Food Safety Bill 2014 and the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) (Amendment) Bill 2014.
Other important matters before the National Assembly include the appointment of members for the Rights of the Child Commission (ROC) and the Women and Gender Equality Commission.
“Clearly, prorogation offers opportunities and indeed a mechanism for dialogue and constructive engagements on a number of issues that are of critical importance to the country,” Nandlall concluded.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.