A major row has erupted over government’s intention to debate and pass three new bills in the National Assembly today although it has explained that the decision is not in breach of parliamentary norms.Just shy of 24 hours before Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, presents the bills for passage, the Private Sector Commission (PSC), the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) have raised eyebrows.

These three bodies have expressed concern about government’s move to suspend the Parliamentary Standing Orders to have the three bills taken through the three stages of debate.

But notwithstanding the trios’ discomfort, government has said it “is acting within the Standing Orders and the Constitution to take several bills through all three stages of debate at one sitting in the National Assembly.”

“The three bills… are critical to good governance and the strengthening of democracy, and as such, they cannot and should not be delayed when the law provides for it to be done in such a manner,” Minister of Governance Raphael Trotman said.

Minister Trotman quoted Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice (24ed) which states that “…except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion may be made to dispense with any sessional or Standing Order of the House without due notice…. However, Standing Orders are frequently suspended, if good cause is shown, to permit bills — more especially bills brought from the other House at a late period of the session — to proceed without the usual intervals and notices.”
Trotman said the three bills will ensure that citizens participate in Local Government Elections (LGE), while Guyana’s international position in the global fight against money laundering and terrorism will be guaranteed.

“The timely passage of these bills, before the end of 2015, is a national imperative, and the government expects to receive the full support of the Opposition in the debate and passage of the bills,” he added.
Trotman contends that it is “universally accepted” that the demands of a situation allow for a government to take a bill through all three stages of debate at one sitting. He said it was a recognised practice in the pre and post-Independence era.

“It is a long and accepted practice in the Westminster Parliamentary System that government business must take priority; and that, from time to time, the Standing Orders and Rules are amended or suspended to allow for this to happen,” he added.

Trotman has labelled the PPP as “hypocritical and mischievous” in claiming that government is undermining the parliamentary process by taking the bills through the stages of debate at one sitting. He said all governments, including the PPP, would have utilised the option, and would have been supported by the then Opposition.

HAPPENED BEFORE

“In January and March of 2007 respectively, the then PPP government utilised the permissible Standing Orders to take several bills through all stages of debate on a single occasion. Bills addressing the movement and migration of persons for Cricket World Cup 2007 and the deployment of disciplined forces on a CARICOM mission were approved in one day, and after very short notice,” he disclosed.

The PPP has accused the APNU-AFC-led Administration of forsaking parliamentary democracy, given the suspension of Standing Orders to allow for the three bills to go through all stages for passage.

The party said that information about the three bills was received only on Tuesday afternoon, and as such, the party was not given sufficient time to see the bills before Tuesday, though they had been gazetted in the previous week.

The GHRA also expressed disappointment at government’s intention to suspend the Parliamentary Standing Orders “in order to rush” the passage of legislation.

In a statement, the GHRA noted its unease at “the intention of the government to suspend Parliamentary Standing Orders in order to rush the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist-Related Activities Bill 2015”.

NOT IDEAL
According to the Human Rights Association, “Rushing bills through Parliament is only acceptable in evident emergencies, where seriously adverse consequences are predictable. The bill in question meets neither of these tests. While similar comments may equally apply to the other two bills on the Order Paper for tomorrow, the GHRA is not sufficiently apprised of the circumstances either to comment on them.”

However, in the case of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the association along with others was invited by Attorney General Williams to comment on the Draft Bill in July this year.

At that forum, the association submitted over 30 amendments and recommendations to the Attorney General. However, none has been included in the draft legislation to be debated today, the GHRA said.

Additionally, the GHRA recommended that “Guyana could set an important precedent by inserting in the law a section providing for the establishment of ‘an Advisory Committee on Human Rights and Terrorism’.”

Such a committee, the GHRA believes, would advise on the implementation of the eventual Act, and could be led by a senior judge including, among others, representatives from civil society.

Also in a statement to the media on Wednesday, the PSC said it is “surprised and concerned” to learn via the media that the new pieces of legislation will be tabled and read before Parliament without consultation with the business community.

“There is growing concern regarding consultation, and we would hope that this latest example would be the last piece of legislation done in this manner.  Vital pieces of legislation should, and must, be brought to the attention of affected stakeholders from civil society and the private sector, so that Article 13 of the Constitution is implemented,” the statement said.

The body has said that, like government, it believes that the country should be compliant with international requirements, but “is equally concerned that all law-abiding stakeholders should be protected”.