… they are unwarranted and unnecessary
THE government is insisting that motions by the parliamentary opposition scheduled for today’s sitting of Parliament are “without merit”, and has deemed this action a demonstration of the lack of understanding and appreciation of parliamentary procedures. People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Members of Parliament (MPs) Prime Minister and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Samuel Hinds, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, expressed their views and concerns yesterday at a press conference hosted in the studio of the National Communications Network (NCN) on Homestretch Avenue, in Georgetown, regarding the motions mentioned on today’s Order Paper.
The motions to be moved deal with the Hansard for the Period January 1985 to December 1992; the Courts of Guyana;  the Service Commissions;  Office of the Auditor General;  Former Presidents’ Pensions and Benefits; National Assets ; Agencies Charged with Extra-Budgetary Funds; Steps to be Undertaken to Establish the Independence and Authority of the National Assembly; and Restrictions on the Right to Assemble.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said these motions demonstrate clearly that there is a lack of understanding and a lack of appreciation of many things, including parliamentary procedures.

He said the procedure adopted by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) MP Carl Greenidge, in whose name most of these motions stand, is “one that is wrong and misconceived”.
“The procedure by way of motion which is used is not necessary; it’s not contemplated by the rules of Parliament. These motions, some of them, seek to challenge the legality of legislation,” he stated.
He explained that the laws of the country provide clearly the procedure by which one can challenge the constitutionality of legislation, and it is by filing actions in the High Court, to set such legislation aside or the sections of those legislation that one is contending are illegal or unconstitutional.
He said they have vested in the courts a power of judicial review of legislation and the judiciary is the arm or the branch of government which is endowed with the responsibility and the jurisdiction to deal with those matters.
“Parliament cannot review its own legislation. It is not contemplated by the constitution and it is patently wrong,” the Attorney General said.
He noted that the Opposition has questioned the legality of certain legislation, such as the Former Presidents’ Pension Act, and many others.
“Coming by way of a motion to the parliament is simply not the procedure provided for in our constitutional construct for these things to be done this way,” he stated.
Another aspect of these motions, he said, is that they seek to elicit information, and reminded, “We have standard parliamentary procedure by which information is elicited from the government or from ministers, and how they are provided”.
Nandlall said the Standing Orders provide for that, adding, “They are done by way of questions, either in writing, or orally, and the answers are provided by the minister at the appropriate time.
“There is no need to bring a motion to ask for documents from NICIL and these organisations. In any event, most of these bodies are statutory bodies and they are audited by the Auditor General; their accounts are presented to the Public Accounts Committee and their annual financial statements are brought to the parliament individually, by the subject minister under whose portfolio these bodies fall, and they are presented in the National Assembly,” he explained.
Alluding to technical flaws, he pointed to the motion that deals with the Former Presidents’ Pensions and Benefits, and said, “Mr. Greenidge ought to know that a colleague Member of Parliament of his political party, APNU, Mr. Desmond Trotman has filed a constitutional action, through his Attorney-at-law, Mr. Christopher Ram, in which he has questioned the constitutionality of this legislation”.
This is the appropriate procedure to question the legislation, the Attorney General said, and the case is pending before the Constitutional Division of the High Court.
Nandlall said the Standing Orders clearly say that one is prohibited from making reference in any debate to a matter that is sub judice.
“This motion is not simply making reference. It is inviting a full blown debate on a matter that is directly before the courts, and therefore, this motion is in clear and palpable violation of the requisite Standing Orders,” he stressed.
To this end, Nandlall said he has written to Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, “outlining my contention to him and attempting to persuade him, in that letter, not to allow the debate on this motion to proceed until the hearing and determination of the action filed”.
He also touched on the motion dealing with the Courts of Guyana, stating that this also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the existing procedure by which the judiciary is financed.
“Those who crafted these motions have demonstrated a shocking lack of knowledge and understanding of important constitutional concepts and precepts, and I can go through each one of these motions to demonstrate to you how they are flawed, how they are unwarranted, and how they are unnecessary,” he stated.
Similarly, Minister of Finance Dr. Singh said when one examines the motions proposed, they essentially fall into two categories, with some seeking information and others seeking to direct that certain actions be taken.
He, too, pointed out, “A parliamentary motion is not the suitable vehicle to seek to achieve either of these two things”.
He said parliament has a well established  mechanism of posing questions to ministers, which has worked extremely well, and he recalled that at the end of the 9th Parliament, there was not a single question asked by the opposition of the government, that remained unanswered.
Turning to motions directing that certain actions  be taken in relation to certain entities, such as  GGMC and NICIL, Minister Singh underlined that those entities are already operating under specific legislation.
“To direct that actions be taken or changes be made with respect to the manner in which they operate, requires a bill to be tabled in parliament and for that bill to be considered and taken through its respective stages, and if successfully enacted, for the provisions of the new enactment to take effect. One cannot seek to do that by way of a parliamentary motion,” he stated.
In relation to a lot of the information being sought, he said that much of the information is already in the public domain, reminding that annual reports of entities are tabled in parliament on a regular basis.
He said the opposition doesn’t want to avail itself of existing sources, stating, “If they want to know every single piece of land that has been sold, that is already the matter of public record”.

Additionally, he said it is extremely unfortunate that the opposition should choose to proceed with some of these motions, since some of these matters were the subject of discussion between the government and the opposition during the course of  consideration of the 2012 national budget estimates.
Singh said all of the issues raised by the opposition were addressed exhaustively, including the matter of constitutional commissions.
“It was pointed out at the time that these matters go to the heart of our constitution. The matter of constitutional commissions like the service commissions, and their independence and how they are treated with respect to administrative functioning and financial operations, those are matters governed by our constitution,” he outlined.
Minister Singh said the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform was identified as the appropriate place for these matters to be considered, and emphasised “that was actually agreed to by the opposition”.
Expressing his surprise and disappointment with the opposition’s action, the minister, however said, The Finance Minister concluded that these motions are without merit and they are inappropriate.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds said in the Order Paper for today’s business, there are some nine motions by the opposition which “we think are hurried, premature, and maybe not given the amount of thought that they should have been  given”.
He said it takes up  parliament’s time to deal with these matters, and “reduces the time we have for taking steps which would work towards keeping the growth and development of our country going”.