CONCERNS over why the dissolution of Parliament, which currently stands prorogued, have been bandied about since President Donald Ramotar’s Tuesday night announcement of May 11 as Elections Day. And Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall yesterday made it clear that the two announcements do not have to be made simultaneously.

“There is absolutely no obligation on the President to dissolve Parliament at the same time when a date for National Elections is announced,” he told the Guyana Chronicle in an invited comment.
Nandlall explained that the two announcements can be made together, but it is not an absolute necessity that they must be.
He added that the Constitution states clearly that elections must be held within three months of the dissolution of Parliament.
By that logic, given that Elections Day is on May 11, the dissolution proclamation by the Head of State can possibly be made after February 11th – considering that February 11th to May 11th marks three months and elections must be held “within three months” of the dissolution of Parliament.
“Parliament has to be dissolved on a date within that three-month timeframe,” Nandlall said.
PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVES
He further explained that dissolution of Parliament, like prorogation, are matters that the Constitution resides with the President.
“These powers and discretion are largely un-circumscribed, except for certain time constraints, none of which are relevant in this context. Perhaps these are not matters about which one ought to speculate, they are specifically provided for under the Constitution,” the AG said.
Nandlall stated that many things which have transpired in recent times are unprecedented, including a Minority Government; the Opposition cutting the National Budget and then disregarding Orders of Court that declared their actions to be unconstitutional; voting down important pieces of legislation which are vital to the national interest; and a no-confidence motion being moved against a Government.
“The list goes on,” he said.
The Attorney General also addressed the continued peddling on the term ‘constitutional crisis’ and was emphatic in stressing that there can be no such thing in the face of constitutional compliance.
“The terms ‘constitutional crisis’ seems to be a phrase, frequently used to clothe irrational contentions with an intellectual veneer. So the breeze blows a little hard and there is a cry of “constitutional crisis.” There can be no ‘constitutional crisis’ when there is constitutional compliance. The less we speak about things we know little about, the better it will be for everyone,” he said.
LAW GUARDS SPENDING
On the question of spending until the dissolution of Parliament, Nandlall underscored that the legal provisions guard spending and ensure that these are done without ‘abuse’, as is being alleged.
He said, “A Combination of Article 219 of the Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, provides that in any financial year the Government is empowered to spend one- twelfth of the Budget of the preceding year in continuing to provide the normal services of the Government of Guyana, until an Appropriation Act is passed.
“This position obtains, whether Parliament is in session or not, or whether there will be Elections or no Elections. Indeed, if Parliament was in session, the National Assembly could not have prevented this constitutional and legal formula in relation to spending during this period from being applied.
“It is important also, that it is emphasised that the Government indicated to the Opposition what the consequences will be if they proceed with a no-confidence motion, in fact the President pleaded with them not to proceed along that route and offered them alternatives.”
He bemoaned the fact that comments on this issue seem to driven by “ego” as opposed to reason.