THE invitation to engage, which was President Donald Ramotar’s focus when he prorogued Parliament, has merit, and would have addressed the prevailing political impasse, rather than going straight to the dissolution of Parliament and early general elections.

Attorney-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in a televised interview last evening, made the foregoing observation and commented on the way forward following prorogation of Parliament.

“Evolution must be forward; it must not be regressive… This is an opportunity for us to talk; for consensus building; building trust amongst ourselves. I do not conceive of a better opportunity for leaders to match their words with actions,” he said.

‘Evolution must be forward; it must not be regressive. I could not conceive of a better opportunity for leaders to match their words with action’ – Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall

The President on Monday announced in an address to the nation that he had issued a proclamation to prorogue Parliament, which essentially means that the current session is suspended for up to a maximum of six months in a move that is provided for in Section 70 (1) of Guyana’s Constitution.

Nandlall noted that the combined opposition’s rejection of this opportunity, as opposed to pushing Guyanese to early elections, is unfortunate.

‘Taking to the streets when opportunity for dialogue exists is a retrograde step… We have a particular history when it comes to protests: The result is public disorder, violence, looting, destruction of public and private properties, mayhem… One has to question whether this is the right approach’– Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall

“We have a very intelligent population viewing these events. Both parties are on record expressing high-sounding principles on the importance of engagement; now the opportunity has presented itself and we see actions that are idealistic with these public pronouncements,” he said.

The AG however acknowledged that a move to general elections would be inevitable if another attempt at dialogue fails.
“Government would have exhausted all efforts to engage with the opposition…. So far, it has yielded no success, because the nation has been informed of a protest,” he said.

HISTORY OF PROTESTS
The matter of the planned protest action by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) today was also addressed by Nandlall.

“Taking to the streets when opportunity for dialogue exists is a retrograde step; we have a particular history when it comes to protests: The result is public disorder, violence, looting, destruction of public and private (properties), mayhem… One has to question whether this is the right approach,” he said.

The AG decried the resort to protest, as opposed to a “more prudent” course of action such as engagement between the country’s political leaders. Protests effectively shut the door to dialogue.

“What I want to ask the Guyanese people is to reflect. Is demonstrating on our streets… the best recourse in the circumstance?” he questioned.

Nandlall added, “Protest in any society must be the last resort”, even in the labour law and industrial relations.
“…perhaps Mr. Granger is unable to unshackle himself from a period which he was in part — which we know from public declarations that the army was used for political purposes. Perhaps he still believes that that epoch of our history is still constant…. These are unfortunate public pronouncements that are coming from responsible leaders who ought to be acting responsibly to dialogue.”

The AG highlighted that the Guyanese people are more concerned about continuing their daily economic activities, and, as such, dialogue should have been given a chance.
To this end, he stressed the need for political leaders to engage constructively to resolve this impasse. “The Government’s door is open. The President’s door is open,” Nandlall said.

QUESTIONS OF OPTIMISM
The AG also fielded questions on Government’s optimism moving forward.

“Leadership and nationalism are best seen in circumstances…. Many countries far more advanced than Guyana have gone through this (prorogation)…. The responsibility (now) rests upon our leaders’ shoulders to demonstrate political maturity, (a) sense of statesmanship that is required to lend leadership to our people,” he said.
Nandlall pointed out that when the current administration was faced with the AFC-sponsored no-confidence motion which, like prorogation, is another constitutional mechanism, it did not “make outlandish statements”, nor did it arrange protest actions.

“We recognised constitutional rights and democratic rights…. We took it in stride…we could have created pandemonium in the country by starting up all sorts of arguments…they have moved in the direction of the no-confidence motion, and the President has exercised a power which he has,” Nandlall said, adding that the response has been criticisms and protest.

The AG contends that the Guyanese people have clearly moved beyond some of its leaders.

“Armageddon was the prediction if Parliament was prorogued,” he said, underscoring the fact that this was done despite the successes Guyanese and Guyana have enjoyed.

He pointed out several indications of the nation’s success, including: nine years of consecutive economic growth, which is unprecedented in the Caribbean; advances in the rice, gold and bauxite industries; a progressing private sector and social sectors’ advance, among other indicators.
“These are not propagandistic realities…where we are as a people and a country is the best that we’ve ever been. Our people have moved on,” Nandlall stressed.

He had no reservations in admitting there is still more to be done for the Guyanese people, but maintained that there has been progress and the current situation is not as dire as is being made out. “It is not at the level that the politicians are carving it out to be,” the AG said.

ABSOLUTELY CONSTITUTIONAL
Nandlall took time out to reiterate that the President’s act in proroguing Parliament was constitutional, and he called for the debate to move past this and for focus to be placed on moving forward.

He said, “We should move beyond discussing (the) legality of (the) President’s decision to prorogue…. I don’t think anyone ought to be in doubt about the legality of the power of prorogation.

“…it is unfortunate that the reaction of the opposition has been what we are witnessing, because they embarked on a course that precipitated in essence. One cannot understand how prorogation did not feature in their likely examination of what is to flow from a no-confidence motion.
“We should move beyond that point, what inspired the President to invoke this constitutional power in the circumstances…. The President explained that this constitutional power was invoked because he sees it as an opportunity for parties to come to (the) table to avoid dissolution of the 10thParliament… The no-confidence motion would have resulted in a dissolution, meaning the death of the 10th Parliament.”

The effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned. All unfinished business is dropped from, or “dies” on, the Order Paper — the National Assembly’s agenda — and all committees lose their power to transact business, providing a fresh start for the next session. No committee can sit during a prorogation. Bills which have not received Presidential assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated”, and in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed.

As a result the AFC no-confidence motion was not considered. The main Opposition, APNU had, prior to Monday, signalled its intent to support the passage of the motion.

Had Parliament not been prorogued, if the no-confidence motion had been passed, Guyana would have been headed to early general elections within three months.

According to the Head of State, the move to prorogation was intended to pave the way for greater dialogue among political parties, while keeping the 10th Parliament alive. However, President Ramotar has made it clear that if efforts at dialogue prove futile, there will be a move to fresh general elections.

The last general elections were held in 2011.