.jpg)
ATTORNEY GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall on Wednesday evening stated that the opposition’s attempt to obstruct Minister Clement Rohee from performing his functions as Home Affairs Minister and as a Member of the Parliament is a violation of the Constitution and an assault on democracy. In an interview with the Government Information Agency, Minister Nandlall pointed out that Minister Rohee was appointed by the president and assigned the responsibilities for the Ministry of Home Affairs, in accordance with the Constitution.
He reminded that Minister Rohee was an elected member of the National Assembly, therefore, legally and constitutionally, only the President can remove him or prevent him from functioning in that capacity. “It is completely unconstitutional and unlawful for the National Assembly to, in any form or fashion, attempt to remove him or to interfere with his ability to function,” the minister declared.
The minister explained that “the Constitution outlines that Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected to the National Assembly by virtue of national elections by the people of Guyana.
“Minister Rohee holds a seat in the Parliament by virtue of that process… therefore, under the constitution and the law, only the electorate or the leader of his political party can prevent him from sitting or functioning in that Parliament. No other functionary or authority can remove an elected member of the National Assembly or prevent him from carrying out his or her functions. The behaviour of the opposition in this regard is an assault on the democratic process and a rejection of the will of the Guyanese people”, Minister Nandlall said.
“The only jurisdiction which the National Assembly has over an elected member is in respect of exercising certain disciplinary power in respect of a member’s conduct with and within the precincts,” the minster declared.
The minister further explained “that the objection premised on the no-confidence motion is wrong in principle, and it is against the law for such a motion to have been passed against an elected MP in our constitutional construct.” He has challenged the motion in court to find out whether it had any legal or binding effect. He has interpreted the opposition’s actions against Minister Rohee as a violation of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, since the issue was before the court and in deference, should not be addressed in the Assembly.
Examining the reason why the no-confidence motion was passed, Minister Nandlall said it was based on the contention that Minister Rohee passed instructions to the police to shoot protestors in Linden. “This conclusion by the opposition was however, presumptuous and precipitous, since both sides had committed to a Commission of Inquiry on the issue, which would determine Minister Rohee’s involvement, if any. This no confidence motion was passed on the presumption of the culpability and involvement of Minister Rohee without any inquiry or any opportunity whatsoever being afforded to the minister to be heard or offer a defence.”
Minister Nandlall stated that the ongoing Commission of Inquiry has seen days of presentation of evidence by the police and witnesses called by the opposition.
“None of the witnesses so far has said anything that can lead any tribunal to conclude that Minister Rohee had the slightest involvement in the Linden incident. There is not even a scintilla of evidence which would tend to establish any form of involvement,” the Legal Affairs Minister said. “In fact, and to the contrary, the evidence rejects the notion that Minister Rohee was in some way involved in the incident.”
He pointed to the fact that the Police Commissioner and Commander Hickens both stated clearly that they did not receive any instructions from Minister Rohee. The contention of the opposition lawyers that evidence of phone records would implicate the minister was dashed when those records revealed that the communication occurred some two hours after the shooting took place.
“The evidence coming out of the Inquiry so far, cogently and consistently exculpates Minister Rohee from any sort of involvement in the Linden incident whatsoever. Therefore, apart from the constitutional basis on which their actions ought to be denounced and democratic basis on which their actions ought to be condemned, you have the factual basis which clearly does not support or lend any form of credibility to their notion that he was involved. One cannot discount also the pronouncement which came from the Commission itself which says that there is no evidence, thus far, to require Mr. Rohee to present himself to the Commission. All of this clearly demonstrates that parliament, by a majority of one, proceeded on a completely misconceived, factual and legal basis when they upheld the no confidence motion,” the AG argued.
Minister Rohee has responsibility for law and order and national security, and the police are responsible for the maintenance of law and public order in the country; however, there has been a constant and concerted attack on the police as they seek to discharge their functions.
“They (police) were beaten assaulted and insulted by opposition elements as we saw in the Agricola incident. Then they are being condemned by politicians in the press. Their minister is being ridiculed and being prevented from functioning in the Parliament. The opposition has stated that they will not support any bill he presents or applications he makes in the Parliament. Therefore, requests by the minister to the National Assembly for much needed financial resources to inject into the police force will not be approved. So, on the one hand, the opposition calls for reform and improvement in the police force, and on the other hand, they prevent resources being allocated to do so,” the Legal Affairs Minister pointed out.
The minister concluded that “there will be consequences. There will be a breakdown of law and order and there will be a rise in public disorder and criminality. This always ensues when the state’s apparatus of maintaining law and order is under siege. This is what is taking place. The opposition is orchestrating this. They must be held responsible.” (GINA)
He reminded that Minister Rohee was an elected member of the National Assembly, therefore, legally and constitutionally, only the President can remove him or prevent him from functioning in that capacity. “It is completely unconstitutional and unlawful for the National Assembly to, in any form or fashion, attempt to remove him or to interfere with his ability to function,” the minister declared.
The minister explained that “the Constitution outlines that Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected to the National Assembly by virtue of national elections by the people of Guyana.
“Minister Rohee holds a seat in the Parliament by virtue of that process… therefore, under the constitution and the law, only the electorate or the leader of his political party can prevent him from sitting or functioning in that Parliament. No other functionary or authority can remove an elected member of the National Assembly or prevent him from carrying out his or her functions. The behaviour of the opposition in this regard is an assault on the democratic process and a rejection of the will of the Guyanese people”, Minister Nandlall said.
“The only jurisdiction which the National Assembly has over an elected member is in respect of exercising certain disciplinary power in respect of a member’s conduct with and within the precincts,” the minster declared.
The minister further explained “that the objection premised on the no-confidence motion is wrong in principle, and it is against the law for such a motion to have been passed against an elected MP in our constitutional construct.” He has challenged the motion in court to find out whether it had any legal or binding effect. He has interpreted the opposition’s actions against Minister Rohee as a violation of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, since the issue was before the court and in deference, should not be addressed in the Assembly.
Examining the reason why the no-confidence motion was passed, Minister Nandlall said it was based on the contention that Minister Rohee passed instructions to the police to shoot protestors in Linden. “This conclusion by the opposition was however, presumptuous and precipitous, since both sides had committed to a Commission of Inquiry on the issue, which would determine Minister Rohee’s involvement, if any. This no confidence motion was passed on the presumption of the culpability and involvement of Minister Rohee without any inquiry or any opportunity whatsoever being afforded to the minister to be heard or offer a defence.”
Minister Nandlall stated that the ongoing Commission of Inquiry has seen days of presentation of evidence by the police and witnesses called by the opposition.
“None of the witnesses so far has said anything that can lead any tribunal to conclude that Minister Rohee had the slightest involvement in the Linden incident. There is not even a scintilla of evidence which would tend to establish any form of involvement,” the Legal Affairs Minister said. “In fact, and to the contrary, the evidence rejects the notion that Minister Rohee was in some way involved in the incident.”
He pointed to the fact that the Police Commissioner and Commander Hickens both stated clearly that they did not receive any instructions from Minister Rohee. The contention of the opposition lawyers that evidence of phone records would implicate the minister was dashed when those records revealed that the communication occurred some two hours after the shooting took place.
“The evidence coming out of the Inquiry so far, cogently and consistently exculpates Minister Rohee from any sort of involvement in the Linden incident whatsoever. Therefore, apart from the constitutional basis on which their actions ought to be denounced and democratic basis on which their actions ought to be condemned, you have the factual basis which clearly does not support or lend any form of credibility to their notion that he was involved. One cannot discount also the pronouncement which came from the Commission itself which says that there is no evidence, thus far, to require Mr. Rohee to present himself to the Commission. All of this clearly demonstrates that parliament, by a majority of one, proceeded on a completely misconceived, factual and legal basis when they upheld the no confidence motion,” the AG argued.
Minister Rohee has responsibility for law and order and national security, and the police are responsible for the maintenance of law and public order in the country; however, there has been a constant and concerted attack on the police as they seek to discharge their functions.
“They (police) were beaten assaulted and insulted by opposition elements as we saw in the Agricola incident. Then they are being condemned by politicians in the press. Their minister is being ridiculed and being prevented from functioning in the Parliament. The opposition has stated that they will not support any bill he presents or applications he makes in the Parliament. Therefore, requests by the minister to the National Assembly for much needed financial resources to inject into the police force will not be approved. So, on the one hand, the opposition calls for reform and improvement in the police force, and on the other hand, they prevent resources being allocated to do so,” the Legal Affairs Minister pointed out.
The minister concluded that “there will be consequences. There will be a breakdown of law and order and there will be a rise in public disorder and criminality. This always ensues when the state’s apparatus of maintaining law and order is under siege. This is what is taking place. The opposition is orchestrating this. They must be held responsible.” (GINA)
