.jpg)
The bills rejected during yesterday’s sitting of the National Assembly are the Evidence (Amendment) Bill, the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, the Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill and the Police (Change of Name) Bill.
Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, addressing the assembly in support of his colleague Home Affairs Minister, said: “The fight against crime has only two sides. You either stand on the side of the criminals or you stand on the side of the law. The Opposition tonight is standing on the side of the criminals.”
Prior to the presentation of the Police (Change of Name) Bill, which was the last of the four Bills to be rejected, Speaker of the national Assembly, Raphael Trotman cautioned members of the House that once a Bill is rejected in the National Assembly, it cannot be brought back for approval in the same parliament.
Therefore, these four important pieces of legislation cannot be brought again to the National Assembly until after the next general elections.
Nevertheless, while attempting to defend the bill, which sought to change the name of the Guyana Police Force to the Guyana Police Service, Rohee said: “If we have to wait until the next election to bring it back, then so shall we.”
The minister further stated that the “political tug-o-war” over the Police Force is unnecessary. He stressed that this bill was not just about a change in name, but rather, speaks of transformation of the force.
Rohee said a name change would not be of “a cosmetic nature” but will serve to signal the promotion of better service to the people of Guyana, in keeping with its motto of “service and protection”.
While attempting to convince members of the House to approve the change in name of the Guyana Fire Service to the Guyana Fire and Rescue Service, Rohee said the Opposition should not choose to vote against the bill simply because he is the one presenting it.
“This is bigger than Rohee!” he exclaimed.
Meanwhile, in his presentation of the second reading of the Evidence (Amendment) bill, which was the first to be voted against by the combined Opposition, Rohee described the bill as innocuous, and as one aimed to enhance the criminal justice system.
He explained that the passage of the bill would go a far way in assisting the forensic laboratory, from a strategic point of view, to advance its strategic plan and the terms of reference to which it has been mandated, when it becomes fully commissioned.
Underscoring the importance of the Bill, Rohee added that the bill will also rise to new heights, the quest to ensure that there is justice based on scientific materials and reports, in order for persons who feel free, to pay some measure of satisfaction.
According to him, the fundamental thrust of the intention of the bill is basically to expand the document to which section 43 of the evidence acts applies, and to make evidence admissible in court without the testimony of the analysts that prepared the report.
He pointed out that there is currently no legislation providing specifically for the admission of the reports of these analysts into evidence without the testimony of that analyst, and as it is, the process can be time consuming.
Rohee stated that unless the analyst is required to give evidence pursuant to the instructions received from the court or an application of any party in the court proceedings, the report of this duly qualified person/s that have analysed a certain matter, has stated the results of the analysis.
He noted, however, that currently, the legislative provision under section 43 of the evidence act allows certain specific reports compiled by experts to be tendered and used in court without the analyst having to attend the court and to give evidence.
This, he said, includes post mortem reports prepared by the pathologists, and medical certificates prepared by a registered medical practitioner after examination of a virtual complaint.
Pointing to post mortem reports, he added that currently, the pathologist would attend court if there’s a request by a party to the proceedings or the court itself.
With regard to narcotics, Rohee explained that the report of the analyst who runs the test on suspected narcotics is also admissible in evidence without the need of this analyst to attend court to give this evidence, unless otherwise directed to do so.
He stated that the reform they are proposing in the bill is to request that certain statutory provisions be enacted in relation to the admission of evidence in the courts in the analysis of the areas of finger prints, fire arm and ammunition, poisonous substances, local and foreign currencies, human blood, bones and tissues, fuel and fuel based substances.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Anil Nandlall pointed out that in 1972, the evidence act was amended to meet the demands, circumstances and needs at the time, and this new amendment sought to substitute that provision which was made.
He added that the amendment also seeks to inject into the evidence act, a wider bracket of reports which can now be admissible in evidence, and indicated that from 1972 to now the world has changed, and so has Guyana, litigation, and most importantly science and technology which has made tremendous advances.
In this regard, AG Nandlall maintained that it is now a recognisable notion in law-making that the law must remain as dynamic as it possibly can and change to meet circumstances that develop in a society lest the law becomes out of sync with those changes which are taking place.
Despite presentations by both Nandlall and Rohee, the combined Opposition, with their one seat majority, still opted to vote against the passage of the bill, since the vote was 32 against and 26.
The second bill to be voted against by the APNU and AFC was the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2013, and before making his presentation to the National Assembly, Minister Rohee blurted out: “The struggle continues”, as he expressed hope that the Opposition would not thwart the bill as they did with the previous one.
The bill, he explained, seeks to address the issue of motor vehicles being used in the commission of crimes such as drive-by shootings, executions, robberies, hit and run, which persons would unanimously agree is taking place.
Rohee further explained that the bill seeks to block all possible loopholes in the law that is used by persons to prevent those who use vehicles in the commission of crimes to face the full force of the law.
According to him, a strong and united signal must be sent from the National Assembly to the persons using motor vehicles to partake in the criminal activities.
During his appeal to the Opposition to allow the passage of this bill, Rohee said that to vote against the Bill is to side with persons who are criminals, since it will deter the use of motor vehicles in the use of crime.
Some members of the House interrupted the minister during his appeal and accused him of begging for support, to which Rohee in response said: “I’m not begging for anything, I don’t need to beg, I stand here as a representative of the people.”
He also pointed out the question of the ownership of these vehicles, and said that persons should be made to face both imprisonment and a fine.
Meanwhile, Public Works Minister Robeson Benn, in his address to the National Assembly on the subject of the rejection of the bills presented by Minister Rohee, said it is not a personal matter between one side of the House and a particular minister, but rather it is the nation’s business.
Benn maintained that the House needs to recognise the urgent need of the bills and amendments and the fact that they are pertinent and relevant and that they have a responsibility as members of the House to take ownership and responsibility with respect to the nation’s business.
According to him, the amendment of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment bill 2013 is long overdue since everyone should have a clear focus as to what sanctions may apply accumulatively if they make breaches with respect to the motor vehicles and road traffic act.
Benn pointed out that we are coming into the modern age, and the bill is another piece of progressive legislation with respect to ensuring there’s the individual responsibility of the owner of the motor vehicle as to what his responsibilities are and what sanctions are applicable on the next infringement.
The owner, he said, should have a clear sense and the clear responsibility of trying to take every action to make sure that they always avoid taking any action which would prevent repeat occurrences with respect to traffic laws. (Additional reporting by Chriseana Ramrekha)
