THE combined Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), has reiterated earlier calls for either the resignation of Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, or the rescindment of his appointment by President Donald Ramotar.

And yesterday, at a press conference at Freedom House, Rohee stressed that the roles of Minister and Commissioner of Police are being misunderstood by the two political parties.
“If I am to fall into that trap (interfering with the functions of the Commissioner of Police) then their criticisms would be justified,” he said.
Rohee made it clear that as Minister, his role is to determine the policy direction for his sector and, in the police force, the Commissioner will be responsible for his superintendents and the management of the Force.
He added that at no point in his tenure as Minister has he given “operational direction” to the Guyana Police Force.
According to him, it is unfortunate that leader of APNU, David Granger, who claims to be an expert on security, is unable to distinguish the differences in the roles of the Minister and that of the Commissioner of Police.
The Home Affairs Minister noted that encouraging “political interference” in the operations of the Guyana Police Force will return Guyana to the pre-1992 days, when political direction for the country’s armed forces was the order of the day.
On a lighter note, Rohee quipped that calls for his removal as Minister of Home Affairs give him pleasure.
He said, “It feels good to know I’m like a bee in his bonnet, it doesn’t upset my breakfast, lunch or dinner, and I eat more heartily….I wish he (APNU’s leader, David Granger) could call for my resignation every day, it makes me feel that I’m on the right path.”
NO CONFIDENCE MOTION
The parties had first called for Rohee’s removal as Minister in 2012, using the National Assembly as the forum to do so, with the passage of a no-confidence motion against him.
The Opposition premised this move on the deaths of three persons in Linden in the July 18 clash between protestors and the police, despite the fact that the police reported that no political directive was given for their actions during the July 18 clash, and the Minister himself had stated that he has a clear conscience and had no hand in whatever actions the police took.
Government had challenged the no-confidence motion, but the ruling by acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang had virtually thrown the decision back at Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman.
The no-confidence motion was eventually passed as a resolution on July 30, 2012, but not acted on by the Head of State, since legally this cannot be done through a no-confidence motion.
According to the Constitution, the removal of a minister can only be done if the president revokes his appointment, if the minister is convicted of a criminal offence, or the minister resigns.
On the National Assembly’s agenda is a motion to prevent Rohee from speaking in Parliament.
On this matter, the Speaker said the Home Affairs Minister will be allowed to participate fully in the business of the National Assembly, that he will be unhindered in the execution of his rights both as an elected Member of Parliament and as the individual designated by the president to be the Home Affairs Minister. The Speaker’s ruling could be seen as a slap in the face of the Opposition who had been very adamant in its condemnation of Rohee. Trotman added that the National Assembly could refuse to listen if Minister Rohee chose to speak, but Rohee was constitutionally given the right to address the National Assembly in his capacity as minister.
This motion was referred to Committee of Privileges on November 22, 2012.
Written By Vanessa Narine