THE Parliamentary Opposition’s contention that Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo should have vacated his seat in the National Assembly while he was President (ag) was referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland.

The opposition through a letter signed by Opposition Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, contended that Prime Minister Nagamootoo, who was performing duties of President, should have been excluded from the National Assembly during consideration of estimates for Budget 2019 which concluded on Friday.

Dr. Scotland in his reply referred the matter to the clerk of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform with an appropriately worded letter. “As I had observed when I informed the House on December 10 about receiving a letter from the Opposition Chief Whip, the matter about which you wrote is one which raises very important issues,” said the Speaker in his letter of reply which he read out loud to the members of the National Assembly subsequent to the approval of the appropriation bill No. 15/2018 on Friday.

According to Dr. Scotland, some of those issues go beyond the particular issue which Teixeira raised and they touched other provisions of the Constitution and the Law and the Practice of Parliament as they would have evolved over the years.
“I am aware that there has been, since the first year of this eleventh Parliament, their view contrary to the ones which you expressed in your letter. Such contrary views have been expressed by persons learned in the law and even by eminent senior counsel.

For the three years following, to the present year, that view has influenced the practice,” he said, adding that Teixeira’s letter has introduced an element of uncertainty in a most important area of the discharge by Members of Parliament of their obligations to the people of Guyana.

According to the letter from the chief whip, in the 8th, 9th and 10th Parliaments in accordance with Articles 96 (1) and 178 (1) and (4) of the Constitution of Guyana, when then Prime Minister Samuel Hinds was carrying out “the functions of Office of the President” who was overseas, he was not allowed to attend a sitting or a committee meeting of the National Assembly.

Scotland in his response to that section of the letter said, there were no records which made clear the reason for the conduct of the prime minister. “I hold the view that the absence of records and the reliance, in its place, on memory does not provide a sufficiently strong basis on which I should rely for a definitive settlement of so grave and weighty a matter as the one to which your letter gives rise to,” said the Speaker, noting that he does not recommend resort to the Justice System for the solution of a matter of this nature.
He believes that the concept of winners and losers is not one to be embraced for a permanent solution to the very important issue. Dr. Scotland instead urged all members of the house to turn their thoughts and employ their abilities to find a solution.

Teixeira was however dissatisfied with the Speaker’s decision, noting that Dr. Scotland was asked to uphold the constitution and not rule on the matter. Her contention was based on Article 178 (4) of the Constitution which unambiguously reads: “During any period when a minister is performing the functions of the office of the President under article 96 or 179 or has assumed the office under the proviso to article 95(1), his seat in the National Assembly shall be regarded as vacant … At the expiration of the period… the seat shall thereupon be resumed by the minister.”

“The language is clear and unambiguous…he was asked to uphold the constitution not a ruling…the speaker does not want it to go to court and he believes it is a resolution matter but it is a matter of upholding the constitution,” said the opposition chief whip.
Asked if going to court will be the opposition’s recourse, she replied in the affirmative, noting that they do not have any other choice but to seek legal recourse. In a recent report, Prime Minister Nagamootoo had accused Jagdeo of attempting to sow seeds of discord among the citizenry in an attempt to block passage of the government’s $300.7B budget.

“I want to put that in context for the Guyanese people to know that the deviousness is what we see playing out; that they’re trying to first divide members of this government and set us up against each other; and then when you believe, as a throwback, as a fallback, you’re now asking for the removal from the House of the prime minister,” he said.

“Because, the intention is to first defeat the $300.7B Budget; to lock down the government; to create a constitutional crisis; and to breathe disaffection and rebellion among the people of this country. It is diabolical, and it has to be met squarely. It has to be answered; it has to be defeated,” the prime minister said.

He further explained that the Constitution provides for the prime minister to be leader of government business in the House, first vice-president and principal adviser to the president.
He said, too, that the president, in or out of Guyana, could authorise the prime minister to carry out “certain functions”, which could be “any function.”