GOVERNMENT has rejected the Office of Clerk of the National Assembly Bill, which seeks establishment and administration of an independent Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly, when it was read for the second time at the 32nd sitting of the National Assembly yesterday by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP) Ms Volda Lawrence.

In an interview with the Guyana Chronicle after the first session of yesterday’s proceedings, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Mr. Anil Nandlall, related that Government would not support any bills emanating from the Opposition if those bills are deemed unconstitutional in the opinion of the Government.
He also mentioned that government would not support any bills which are inconsistent with current executive policy, or future executive policy; or if Government does not have the financial resources to administer and execute the law that the bill seeks to enact, or if the bill is deemed unnecessary.
In the extant case, he specifically advanced two reasons for Government’s non-support of the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill: unnecessary and unconstitutional.
“In my presentation, I gave, in a very detailed way, the reasons why the Government is unfortunately constrained in not supporting the bill. The Government’s view, as I articulated in my presentation, is based on principle,” he noted.
Nandlall explained that the bill is also unnecessary in that the Office of Clerk of the National Assembly is already adequately provided for by the constitution.
“The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and therefore that post holder has received, by its presence in the constitution, the highest form of legal recognition; and the constitution also protects, in a very entrenched fashion, the terms of service and remuneration package of that office holder,” the minister asserted.
He said the constitution ranks that office holder amongst the highest constitutional office holders in the land, including the President, the Speaker of the National Assembly, judges of the Supreme Court, the Auditor General, the Police Commissioner and the Elections Commission, among others. He said that those are all high constitutional office holders, and their financial remuneration packages are protected by a constitutional provision which charges their salaries and remuneration directly to the Consolidated Fund, which provides that they cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the office holders.
The Attorney General recalled going through in detail the various clauses in the bill and demonstrating elaborately how each collided with provisions of the constitution. He pointed to Article 171 of the constitution, which says that any time a bill or a motion seeks to impose or add a charge on the Consolidated Fund, that bill or motion must receive the consent of Cabinet, as signified by a minister, before the National Assembly can proceed with it.
According to Minister Nandlall, because this bill allows the clerk to employ a whole regime of employees and charge the cost of so doing to the Consolidated Fund, it violates that provision of the constitution.
“Since Cabinet did not signify its consent to the bill, the National Assembly ought not to proceed as provided for by Article 171 with debating the bill,” he stated.
Prior to the bill being presented for its second reading, Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, noted that Nandlall had pointed out certain clauses in the bill that violated the Constitution of Guyana, and had submitted that the bill should not be proceeded with.
Trotman related that, if passed, some aspects of the bill can indeed come into conflict with the constitution. However, he added that, as Speaker, he has no jurisdiction in preventing any member from presenting any bill in the assembly.
“It is only when a bill becomes law that it comes into conflict with the constitution. Until such time…the Speaker or the Clerk cannot prevent a bill from proceeding,” Trotman stated.
Volda Lawrence, the APNU MP who read the bill yesterday, requested that the bill be sent to a special select committee to deal with any of its provisions that conflict with the constitution. She said the constitution endorses the universal doctrine of the separation of powers, and contemplates a clear separation between Parliament and the Executive.
“This Bill, No. 8 of 2012, seeks to give Parliament, through the Office of the Clerk, the authority to manage and administer its affairs without being under the external direction of the Executive, as presently exists,” she stated.
Nevertheless, Attorney General Anil Nandlall maintained that the bill is incapable of correction, and that it is a clear violation of the constitution.
“…The bill is incapable of correction, because we tried to correct it. And therefore, even if it goes to the parliamentary select committee, it is incapable of correction; and that is the Government’s respectful position,” he emphasized.