Written by N. AUGUSTUS
WHAT is the opposition really saying or believing? Mr. Granger likes to start his comments with “What I was trying to say.” This may be necessary because he either does not believe what he is saying or is simply unsure of what he is saying.Mr. Granger told Stabroek News that the anti-money laundering legislation needs to be considered and the Procurement Commission will need to be also studied. He claims that they want both to pass and that they are committed to both and that there should be no doubt of their support of both. He has a funny way of showing his support when he voted down the AML/CFT Bill. Since the amendments to the bill were at least satisfactory to CFATF, why hold it up for public input and further opposition consideration, knowing the damage that could be done to the country if not approved by a certain date? Why did he not add the amendments to correct whatever the opposition knew about sooner, then add later what amendments he receives from the public and prevent the current damage caused to the country? There is no valid excuse to defeat this bill if politicians really care about people

Whether the Parliament had its own legal counsel to review its bills or not, the President could still request the AG to confirm its legality and see if they were in conflict with other laws before signing them.
Is the issue really, whether the President should return the bills within the required time with a yes or no and possibly an explanation? Shouldn’t the same thing be applied to the procurement legislation? Why can’t the GoG or Finance Minister question the advisability of accepting any procurement award in Parliament, if there is good cause to question them for financial or other legitimate reasons?
This should be true whether the Bill excludes the Cabinet approval or not. Both sides should have the right to question approvals regarding procurements. The GoG does have responsibility for the budget and cannot be completely removed from any approvals by Parliament. Continuing, the question regarding Mr. Jagdeo’s pension can be challenged in the courts, even if signed by the President with the understanding that he believes it is illegal but is doing so if it will avoid the stalling of important legislation. The stakes are too high for the nation to allow pride, personal animosities or power-seeking to derail the nation’s progress.