The Executive War on the Legislative Branch

Selected Reports of The Government Information Agency Georgetown, Guyana

January-November, 2012

___________
1. Combined Opposition, January 11, 2012. 2. We have to get on with Govt business, January 14, 2012. 3. Govt will not allow intricate Parliament deliberations, January 25, 2012. 4. Oppositions behaviour in National Assembly reckless, February 16, 2012. 5. Opposition non- cooperation over Supplementary Bill, February 16, 2012. 6. APNU-AFC Parliamentary Alliance, February 16, 2012. 7. One-seat majority should not be used, February 22, 2012. 8. One-seat majority continues, February 29, 2012. 9. Govt seeks legal redress, March 7, 2012. 10. Opposition seeking to undermine projects, March 14, 2012. 11. Ruling Partys objections on composition of committees, March 14, 2012. 12. Oppositions objections against supplementary papers, March 16, 2012. 13. Parliament should await court ruling, March 16, 2012. 14. Opposition guilty of Constitutional violation, March 16, 2012. 15. Parliamentary committees make-up, March 17, 2012. 16. Established parliamentary rules, March 21, 2012. 17. Opposition violation of Constitution, March 23, 2012. 18. APNU continues to sow confusion, March 23, 2012. 19. Opposition alliance reckless and relentless, March 28, 2012. 20. Opposition back peddles, March 30, 2012. 21. Oppositions budget presentations political rhetoric, April 17, 2012. 22. Parliament cannot dismiss workers willy-nilly, April 18, 2012. 23. Opposition alliance unprincipled, vindictive, May 9, 2012 24. NICIL issue concocted and fabricated by Opposition, May 9, 2012 25. Oppositions motions question legality of legislation, May 9, 2012 26. Govt forced to engage in parliamentary battles, May 9, 2012 27. Opposition reneges on agreements, May 11, 2012. 28. Oppositions Motions in Parliament reek of unpatriotic sentiments, May 16, 2012. 29. Govt moving to court to challenge OP budget cuts, May 23, 2012 30. Govt seeks Conservatory Order from High Court. June 6, 2012 31. Approval of financial Paper Nine is an acid test, June 7, 2012. 32. Govt maintains National Assembly cannot cut Budget, June 7, 2012. 33. Opposition budget cuts aimed at collapsing Govt, June 8, 2012. 34. Constitutional crisis referred to by Speaker, June 9, 2012. 35. I will not assent to Opposition bills that lack Executives input, June 13, 2012 36. Opposition reveals insincerity about restoring budget cuts, June 14, 2012. 37. Two important Govt Bills to be read today in parliament, June 27, 2012 38. Motions tabled and passed by Opposition, June 28, 2012 39. Opposition extra-budgetary agencies motion, June 28, 2012 40. Opposition seeks to violate FMA Act, June 30, 2012. 41. Govt has strong case, July 3, 2012 42. Unprepared Opposition asks for more time, July 4, 2012. 43. Decision pending in Attorney Generals budget cuts case, July 10, 2012 44. Opposition, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary, July 13, 2012. 45. 2012 Budget cuts unconstitutional - CJs verdict, July 18, 2012
2

Contents

46. Oppositions no-confidence motion in Minister Rohee, July 24, 2012. 47. No confidence motion against Home Affairs Minister, July 25, 2012 48. Only President can remove Minister, July 26, 2012. 49. Parliament has no jurisdiction over a Ministers appointment, July 26, 2012. 50. Opposition Motion to remove Home Affairs Minister, July 31, 2012. 51. Motion to remove Govt Minister is impotent, July 31, 2012. 52. Oppositions no-confidence motion premature, August 2, 2012. 53. Govt to approach Parliament for funds, August 3, 2012 54. Govt debunks oppositions motion, August 3, 2012 55. Govt MPs bemoan opposition leadership, August 5, 2012. 56. Opposition again votes down funds for Presidents Office, August 9, 2012. 57. Oppositions refusal to restore cut funds, August 10, 2012. 58. Parliamentary opposition showed its hand, August 17, 2012. 59. Parliamentary opposition tables motions, August 27, 2012. 60. Opposition has a glorious role as a majority, August 31, 2012. 61. Budget experience has fortified Govt resolve, September 1, 2012. 62. 2012 Budget cuts Court case to take its normal course, September 6, 2012 63. AG issues high court challenge, September 14, 2012. 64. AG Nandlall responds to APNU statements, September 20, 2012 65. Govt prepared to fight against unjust assaults, October 11, 2012. 66. Tenth Parliament lapsing, October 13, 2012. 67. Clerks office Bill repugnant, unconstitutional, October 18, 2012. 68. Concerns mount about Parliamentary norms, October 19, 2012. 69. Opposition fails to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking, October 22, 2012. 70. Motion on Independence of National Assembly not passed, October 23, 2012. 71. Opposition using civil unrest as a justified tool, October 24, 2012. 72. Oppositions attempts to obstruct Minister, October 25, 2012. 73. New polls no solution to parliamentary uncertainties, October 31, 2012. 74. Opposition fails to prove Minister Rohee culpable, November 1, 2012. 75. Cabinet registers concern, November 8, 2012. 76. Speaker rules Rohee must stay, November 9, 2012. 77. Government condemns Oppositions disregard, November 9, 2012. 78. Govt MPs condemn Opposition, November 10, 2012. 79. Parliament becoming stage for antics of extremists, November 15, 2012. 80. No parliamentary opposition move, November 20, 2012. 81. Parliament will be a testing of mettle PPPC MPs, November 21, 2012. 82. Prospects of constructive Parliamentary engagement, November 21, 2012. 83. Motion to gag Home Affairs Minister Rohee totally wrong, November 23, 2012. 84. Oppositions rejection of democratic traditions, November 23, 2012. 85. Speakers ruling contradictory and a travesty, November 24, 2012. 86. Govt to take steps to defend Minister Rohee, November 24, 2012. 87. Referral to Privileges Committee, November 24, 2012. 88. Govt moves to High Court, November 27, 2012. 89. Opposition lost golden opportunity to work with Govt, November 28, 2012. 90. Govt rejects weird logic, disregard for Standing Orders, November 30, 2012.

1. Combined Opposition undermining initial tripartite agreement -Govt to nominate Ramkarran as Speaker, January 11, 2012 Government has reiterated its disappointment in the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFCs) side-stepping in the tripartite initiative to negotiate the speakership and other matters relating to Parliament, which deliberately undermines the approach that was initially agreed on in December. Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira, who filled in for Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon who is overseas, at a post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President said that this has been a serious breach early in before the convening of the Parliament. The fact that the combined Opposition has only one seat more than the Government should not be construed as a cart blanche to run the National Assembly to the detriment of an elected Government and the people of this nation, Teixeira said. Cabinet reiterated that the actions of the combined Opposition in the face of their declared pronouncements during the 2011 elections campaign of bringing in a new political culture and a willingness to work for national unity has been undermined by their recent actions. Teixeira recalled statements made by APNUs Presidential Candidate, David Granger to the effect that his Party was willing to work with the PPP/C, win or lose. Government, on January 9, wrote to the two parliamentary political parties; reminding them of the agreements that were reached in December to name representatives to the tripartite initiative and to reaffirm its interest in meeting. With regards to the proclamation of the convening of the Tenth Parliament, Teixeira said that it is in keeping with the constitutional mandate and honours the request of the Opposition Parties to postpone the convening in December. Speakership We recognised that the issue of speakership is of extreme importance but the business of the nation; economic growth, political stability, continuation of the pro-poor/pro growth programmes and in particularly, expansion of the poverty reduction programmes are of the greatest priorities to the Government, the Presidential Advisor said. Making references to other minority Governments in the world, she explained that in a Commonwealth Parliament, the ruling Party gets the speakership and with regards to the Speaker, Government has expressed the view that the current Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran is best suited to preside over the Tenth Parliament. Parliament Speakers are not generally changed unless they have passed on or tender their resignation; at present Ramkarran is Speaker-elect. Whoever is the Speaker is expected to be fair and impartial and not be an impediment to Government business they are expected to fulfill that mandate with an even-hand
4

and Ramkarran has demonstrated thisGovernment will go to the Parliament to put forward his nomination and vote for him, she said. Prime Minister Samuel Hinds will resume his initial post as Leader of the House; while Teixeira will be the new Chief Whip for the Government. 2. We have to get on with Govt business Prime Minister Hinds -despite oppositions charade, January 14, 2012 Prime Minister Samuel Hinds during a discussion programme aired on the National Communication Network, this evening said that Government is committed to continuing its work since the ruling party has the largest bloc of parliamentarians and there is an absolute need for parliament to get on with the business of the country. The Tenth Parliament convened on Thursday last with the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly being elected from the camps of the Opposition, the first time in Guyanas history that such a situation has occurred in the National Assembly. Prime Minister Hinds who was joined by Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee said a lot of learning in procedural things must take place by all the political parties involved, which would be extended to members of the public so that they can have reasonable expectations from the parliamentary sittings. This learning process would also encompass not only the expectations of our Guyanese people but, it will also address the issue of how government can functionthere are lots of things that need to be done along the way at different times, taking into consideration the budget amongst other things, Hinds said. Hinds further noted that the partys Chief Whip Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira has made a study on minority situations particularly in the Caribbean and 99% of the times, the opposition has allowed the nominee of the government to become Speaker of the National Assembly. This did not turn out that way in parliament when it was convened, nevertheless we have to get on with the business of the government so that citizens can benefitthat is what our party and government intends on doing, Hinds said. That would be the focus of the governmentin some matters there may be differences in viewthere may be earnest honest differences on various mattersone can imagine that on some issues there may have a combination where two of the three parties share the same view on some matter, Hinds said. Rehashing the occurrences of the deliberations which were initiated after the declaration of the positions of the November 28, 2011 polls, Hinds noted that initial discussions were held by President Donald Ramotar and other senior members of the PPP/C party with members of APNU and AFC as it pertains to the nomination of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, however the PPP/C believes that the other parties did not play through with its expectations of appointing Mr. Ralph Ramkarran as speaker for the Tenth parliament.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trotman is appointed as Speaker of the National Assembly...he is therefore expected to hold the balance in parliament, acting as fairly and evenhandedly as anyone couldWe on the governments side would need to get on with our programmes and advance the business of the countryeven President Donald Ramotar during the campaign season spoke about getting on with the economic and social development of the countrythat is what we certainly want to get on with, Hinds reiterated. Minister Rohee said that the entire proceedings and the manner in which the speaker was elected seems to be farcical, as it is something that appears to be well pre-arranged by the joint opposition. It was interesting to note that sections of the media already had an indication of what was going to happen on Thursdaythis historical antecedence whereby the government would win the executive and the majority of the house, it would graciously concede the deputy speaker, as a matter of tradition, to the oppositionAPNU and the AFC conspired for some time to hog everything for themselveshaving lost the executive and having won the majority in the National Assembly, they decided to occupy other positionsthis is the tip of the ice-berg in what is expected to come, Minister Rohee said. Minister Rohee further said that he has mixed feelings about the workability of the current parliamentary setup. Mr. Granger and Roopnarine (Rupert) have already made it clear that they have an agenda that they are going to push, and on the other hand they are saying that they are not going to block the passage of bills and motions made by the governmentthis is a charadeit ought not to have been because it is inconsistent with best practices in democratic countries, Minister Rohee said. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall and Former Minister of Local Government and Regional Development Clinton Collymore, in a similar discussion programme on Thursday last, similarly spoke out on the actions of the joint opposition in nominating a Speaker. Nandlall said that the oppositions action is an indication of what is expected from them during the sittings of the Tenth parliament which means that the business of the government may not proceed. Veteran parliamentarian Collymore said the current setting of parliament is biased and seemingly racial in nature as Afro-Guyanese hold the key positions in parliament. The opposition leader would have to be Mr. Granger, Mr. Trotman is the Speaker, Deborah Backer is Deputy Speakerthere are no IndiansMr. Ramjattan nor Mr. Nagamootoo got any positionsthis was manipulated to project an ethnic preponderance and is something that we cannot have right now in Guyana, Collymore said. The Tenth Parliament was convened on January 10, 2012. Whilst is was governments intention of having productive discussions with members of the opposition after which a Speaker and Deputy Speaker for the National Assembly would have been agreed upon, the joint opposition A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) used their one seat majority to elect attorneys Raphael Trotman and Deborah Backer as Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively, overlooking Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran who was the governments nominee.
6

3. Govt will not allow intricate Parliament deliberations to hinder

developmental thrust- HPS - decries political heist of speaker, deputy speaker positions, January 25, 2012

Government has reiterated its position in support of engaging the two parliamentary Opposition Parties (APNU and AFC) in discussions in areas of mutual concern; however, it has made it clear that it is not in any way obligated to pander to a Tenth Parliament, whose deliberations will frustrate and prevent implementation of its development thrust, as it is still the governing party. This position was affirmed by Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at the weekly post-Cabinet media briefing at the Office of the President today. The HPS maintained that Government stands ready to honour its December 2011 commitment with the two Opposition Parties; however, given the evolution of the tripartite initiative which saw the APNU and the AFC collaborating; taking a unilateral stance, engagements with Government on important matters have been stymied. The Cabinet Secretary stated that notwithstanding the denials, the APNU and the AFCs collaboration, managed to pull off one of the major political heist in Guyanas parliamentary history, which, even the PNC-Burnhamite dictatorship never stooped to. He added that what is even more significant was the elected speakers notional commitment to parliamentary impartiality, even though he is said to be inclined to retain his appointment as the representative of the AFCs list. The questions that Cabinet and many Guyanese are now dealing with are what can be expected from this alliance? And will the AFC collate further with APNU, acting as a single parliamentary party in the Parliament? What is constantly being unnoticed by the two Opposition Parties is that the PPP/C is still the majority, as it is the only Party with the most seats among the three in Parliament and therefore, its role in decisionmaking can hardly be ignored. Moreover, the ruling Party expects its concerns to be properly and holistically addressed in the Parliament, particularly as it relates to advancing the interests of citizens. Another concern Dr. Luncheon said is whether or not they will extend the memorandum of understanding (which was signed between the APNU and the AFC for future cooperation) and collectively turn their attention to the composition and the chairmanship of parliamentary committees. The Governments developmental thrust for Guyana is on the line particularly because Parliament has an important contribution to make in the implementation of this thrust. Over the last two terms, the Eighth and the Ninth Parliament we have seen that design of that developmental thrust, he said. A meeting of the tripartite initiative is being planned so as to get a mutually satisfactory outcome on the list of matters proposed by the three Parties before the February 10 sitting of the National Assembly, at which President Donald Ramotar is expected to give an address.

After being reminded via a letter, the APNU and the AFC have finally submitted the names of their high representatives. The former submitted the names of Joseph Harmon and Deborah Backer; while Gerhard Ramsaroop and Clayton Hall will be representing the latter. 4. Oppositions behaviour in National Assembly reckless and irresponsible,
February 16, 2012

The joint parliamentary oppositions non-approval of sections of financial paper number seven of 2011 and number eight of 2011 is classified as irresponsible and reckless behaviour by the government. These sentiments were expressed by Peoples Progressive Party Civics Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh and Minister within the Ministry of Finance Juan Edghill, who convened a post-assembly media-briefing after this evenings adjournment of the National Assembly. Prime Minister Samuel Hinds expressed disappointment in the manner in which todays proceedings developed. We are very disappointed in how things went this afternoon in the House in particular. Four of our heads were not carried in the replenishment of our contingencies fund and we find it very astonishing that monies that were spent in hosting the investiture of the orders of Guyana, that it was disallowed along with expenditure on the swearing in of the new president, Prime Minister Hinds said. Hinds said that things collapsed on the issue of the very standard arrangements that are made to bring into the consolidated fund the monies that have been advanced in the foreign funded projects. This has been seen all along as a matter of a book entry, entering this money into the books of our country and there could hardly be questions of lack of transparency as all of these foreign funded projects are listed in detailed and made publicthey also appear in detail in the budget, the sections that deal with capital projectsthis may be a matter of form and formatting, Hinds said. Mr. Hinds believes that the act of the joint parliamentary opposition to not approve the financial obligations but rather hold out that government should return with the proposals is disappointing and irresponsible, as in one instance it dealt with the payment of wages to staff of the General Registers Office for overtime work during the registration period of elections. Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh said the matter of bringing financial papers to the parliament for approval is a process that is governed by applicable law and has the benefit of time honoured parliamentary custom and practice. Over the years preceding the tenth parliament and the governments successive terms in office financial papers have been brought to parliament both to seek original supplementary appropriations and to clear advances made by the contingencies fund for the purposes of replenishing that fund, Minister Singh said. Minister Singh believes that the coming together of the opposition to withhold approval of very legitimate expenditure that was incurred in accordance with the law is very
8

alarming. What we witnessed today was the coming together of the APNU and the AFC to withhold parliamentary imprimatur being granted to expenditure that was incurred from the contingencies fund in accordance with the lawthis expenditure was incurred in the interest of providing goods and services to the people of Guyana, Minister Singh said. The Finance Minister believes that it is astonishing to see that approval was withheld after items such as expenditure incurred for the payment of staff of the General Registers Office (GRO) during the ongoing Registration period as the staff worked overtime to ensure that eligible persons receive their birth certificates so to be qualified to vote. At the time that the decision was approved for the payment of the staff of the GRO the Ministry of Home Affairs requested a sum to be paid to the people and it was granted details have been provided in depth as to who these people are and the hours worked, nevertheless it was still not approved one has to ask oneself on what purpose was approval withheld on a matter like this, Minister Singh said. The Finance Minister believes that the action of the joint parliamentary opposition is an indication of their intentions to frustrate the parliamentary sessions and stymie the continued development of the country, which is a direct threat to tripartite budget and other talks. Meanwhile Teixeira said that the joint parliamentary oppositions behaviour in todays proceedings demonstrated the level of their willingness to cooperate and collaborate with government for the continued development of the country. The voting of APNU against expenditure for business in the hinterland locations, a $2.7M electrification related projects saw APNU breaking ranks with AFC as the vote was not lostthe count of the vote was 39 for and 24 against with AFC voting for and APNU voting againstthis indicates that the opposition, particularly APNU is saying that they want to see development for Guyana but on the other hand their behaviour contradicts it, Teixeira said. Teixeira also said that it blows ones mind to think of such reckless behaviour on the part of the opposition as their action indicates explicitly their unwillingness to work collaboratively and cooperatively with government. Their actions today not only disappoint the governments side but also the people who voted for them as they show that they are not in favour to stand by their own words of putting Guyana first and stymieing the process of development of the countrythis also threatens the process of tripartite collaboration but nevertheless government will remain committed to engaging the opposition in talks, Teixeira said. 5. Opposition non-cooperation over Supplementary Bill stymies Govt work , February 16, 2012 Governments much anticipated fear of gridlock, which President Donald Ramotar warned of in his address to the Tenth Parliament, today came to pass in the National
9

Assembly today as it tried to find common ground with the Parliamentary Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance for Change (AFC), with regards to financial papers seven and eight of 2011. The two papers totalling, $2,240,901,071 and $3,471,047,823 respectively, seeking approval for expenditure met from the contingencies fund late last year were tabled by Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh on February 10 in the National Assembly. Financial paper seven was debated and was amended before being approved, as the Opposition refused to support certain provisions that were being sought, key among which was the provision that was sought for expenses associated with the national investiture ceremony and other events hosted by the State. Minister within the Ministry of Finance, Juan Edghill said that the expenditure associated with the investiture ceremony totalled over $10M; noting that this activity was not catered for in the 2011 national budget. He explained further, that due to the fact that this ceremony had a five-year hiatus, they had to cater for 131 national awardees. APNU member Carl Greenidge proceeded to ask for a breakdown of how the $25M was spent by the Office of the President. This was provided to the House by Minister Edghill; it includes $10M for the investiture ceremony, $5M for the swearing-in of the new President and the Cabinet, $1.5M went towards supporting two national sports in Guyana (cricket and football), and donations amounting to $8M went towards a number of organisations including the sum that made available to support ACDAs activities to commemorate the International Year of People of African Descent (IYPAD). Another major objection by the Opposition that left Government members mindboggled was to the $6.5M that was sought for the payment of honorarium for staff of the General Register Office (GRO) who worked during the second claims and objections period leading up to the 2011 General and Regional Elections, to ensure that Guyanese were not disenfranchised. Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, under whose responsibility the GRO falls, said that 53 people from that office had to be paid overtime to ensure that these vital source documents were made available. He went on to provide details that these employees worked a total of 336 hours; producing 18,000 birth certificates. A division was called on this particular item; resulting in 31 members voted in favour of it, while 32 voted against it; as such, it was defeated. In capital estimates of the same paper, the $29.1M that was sought for infrastructural works with regards to the Specialty Hospital received no support from with Opposition party, as they question the provision on the basis that the project was being funded by a loan. Health Minister, Dr. Bheri Ramsaran in his response, said that the sum being sought is meet expenses associated with the land preparation at the site where this state-of-the-art facility will be constructed.

10

This answer was supported by Minister Singh who explained that the loan provided by the India Exim Bank will cover the cost of construction and acquisition of certain basic equipment; however, it does not cover costs associated with site preparation. After several calls for vote by division, the amended financial paper seven was approved; however, instead of the original sum $2,240,901,071, it was revised and reduced to $2, 161,281, 593. Financial paper eight did not receive the support of the Opposition. APNU fully supported by the AFC called for Government to withdraw the supplementary paper and resubmit it after it would have been restructured with more details of the expenditure. Minister Singh in response maintained that there is no basis for such a request; emphasizing that Government is more than prepared to answer any question that the Opposition may have and on many previous occasions, submitted detailed information to members of the House. He explained that there are two types of financial papers that are brought to the National Assembly; one that seeks parliamentary approval imprimatur for advances made from the contingencies fund, which is provided for and governed by the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003. The second type of financial paper, he described as a straight supplementary; not advances withdrawn from the contingencies fund to meet urgent, unforeseeable expenditures. This in turn, comprises two different types of expenditures, local and foreign. Paper eight, he said, refers to the second type of expenditure, in the second category of financial papers. We are asking merely for approval of specific appropriation, which the national estimates clearly outlined I am taken completely by surprise by the Opposition, we have no difficulty answering any questions, he said. Greenidge, notwithstanding Minister Singhs explanation and appeal for the Opposition to reconsider their position with regards to paper eight, maintained that it should be restructured. After the House reached this impasse, a suspension was called during which Government members tried to negotiate with the Opposition in an effort at a consensus; thereby advancing the business of citizenry. However, all efforts proved futile, as both Opposition parties held true to their position. Deputy Speaker, Deborah Backer, who presided over the sitting, then called for an adjournment, as this is the first time that the Parliament of Guyana has arrived at such a crossroad and as such, she had to be advised on the next step forward. The House stands adjourned until March 15, at which time, this matter will be further discussed. 6. APNU-AFC Parliamentary Alliance and its Reckless Parliamentary Agenda,
February 16, 2012

11

The National Assembly of Guyana in its third sitting in 2012 has again made a decision that violated the Constitution, the laws of Guyana and a commitment made by the Parliamentary Political Parties during the tripartite talks to work together in the interest of Guyana. Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh had tabled on February 10, 2012, Financial Papers No. 7 & 8 for the consideration of the House. The Financial Papers disclosed expenditure made through supplementary provisions by the Administration in Fiscal year 2011 in accordance with existing law. The law provided for the Minister, at the earliest opportunity subsequently, to present for the consideration of the House the expenditure so incurred. The initial reactions of the APNU/AFC Parliamentary alliance to the February 10 tabling were uncompromisingly hostile with threats ranging from outright rejection to censure, among others. The alliance continued its rhetoric about unlawful expenditure. The alliance in examining the Financial Papers 7 & 8, selectively withheld its authorization of various expenditure items. The principle that the expenditure made by the Minister and outlined in the Financial Papers 7 & 8 was in conformity with the existing law was repeatedly rejected by the APNU/AFC Parliamentary alliance. In that context, at the Committee of Supply, the alliance rejected expenditure related to Office of the President procurement of security surveillance goods and services, expenditure on National Events and Ceremonies, specifically the national awards and the inauguration of President Ramotar. Also rejected at that level was the expenditure for overtime paid to public officers at General Registrars Office earned during the Claims and Objections periods leading up to the 2011 General and Regional elections. Most bewildering was the APNU/AFC comprehensive rejection of expenditure associated with the Specialty Hospital construction and site preparation. Looking ahead, the APNU/AFC alliance seems intent on cherry picking and rejecting selective items of expenditure. It is anticipated that they will use their voting strength to authorise the expenditure for only those items favourably considered at the level of the Committee of Supply thus rejecting recklessly all the other items of expenditure. Once again the APNU/AFC Parliamentary alliance has signaled its intention to continue on the course of confrontation using their combined vote in the National Assembly for partisan political interests. Regrettably, the APNU/AFC combined vote in Parliament has now been used on three (3) consecutive occasions in two sittings to undermine constitutionality and to disregard parliamentary norms and traditions. The very first time, and unparalleled in the history of the legislature in Guyana, the APNU/AFC collaborated to have both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to belong on the same side of the House. On the second occasion, the APNU/AFC combined vote was used to establish a composition of the Committee of Selection that ignored the constitutional principle of proportionality among the parties therein represented. In this the latest and the third time, the APNU/AFC alliance rejected authorizing lawful expenditure by the Administration that was outlined in Financial Papers 7 & 8. These three consecutive acts have conjured the spectacle of the Parliamentary opposition parties collaborating on frustrating the implementation of the PPP/C Executive Parliamentary program.

7. One-seat majority should not be used to hinder Guyanas development- HPS- Oppositions ill-conceived actions should be rejected, February 22, 2012
12

Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at a post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that the one-seat majority that the Opposition hold in Parliament, should not be used by them, as an opportunity to render counter-productive measures in Guyanas development. He noted that the sitting of the Tenth Parliament thus far, moreso the last one, continue to be a matter of concern for Cabinet as the attempts by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance for Change (AFC) to undo and revise laws, rules and conventions, took an unprecedented turn on February 16. Cabinet recognised the illadvised and not well thought-out intrigues by the coalition that played out on that day and is deeply concerned about the uncertainty of its likely impact, the HPS said. Mature judgment and enhanced changes were called for by Cabinet in order to chart the way forward, as the preferred approach in dealing with issues surrounding Guyanas development that was being handled at the level of the National Assembly. This specter of that body unravelling Guyanas development agenda with ill-conceived actions, Cabinet insisted must be rejected and called for more thoughtful engagements at this, the highest level of the land, the Cabinet Secretary said. He added that the current dispensation in the National Assembly provides an ample chance for the body politic to work collaboratively and imposes the responsibility for Opposition Parties to commit themselves to working with the Administration to maximise the opportunities. The February 16 sitting during which two papers totalling, $2,240,901,071 and $3,471,047,823 that were tabled by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, left the House in a position that was not contemplated in the countrys legal framework of governance, as some of the objections raised by the Opposition with regard to certain expenditures, left Parliamentarians on the Government side mind-boggled. Financial paper seven was debated and was amended before being approved, as the Opposition refused to support certain provisions that were being sought; however, during the debate on the second paper, they tabled an amendment for it to be withdrawn and restructured before being re-submitted. After the sitting, Governments Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, Minister Singh and Leader of the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds hosted a press conference where they expressed the ruling Partys disappointment in the fact that the much anticipated fear of gridlock, which, only a week ago, President Donald Ramotar warned against in his address to the Tenth Parliament was being played out. Parliament is adjourned until March 15, at which time, the financial papers and the subsequent passing of the Supplementary Bill, will be further discussed. 8. One-seat majority continues to be used in contempt of constitutionHPS, February 29, 2012 The parliamentary Opposition continues to use its one-seat majority in contempt of the constitution, parliamentary rules, procedures and regulations, but Cabinet has stated
13

that such actions would not be condoned. Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that Cabinet members continued to record the list of the Oppositions - A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance for Changes (AFC) - indefensible actions that are likely to occur and accumulate. The most recent being their non-support for certain items listed in Financial Paper Seven and the entire Financial Paper Eight at the February 16 sitting of the National Assembly. Dr. Luncheon said that the Oppositions Motion which was carried to defer Paper Eight, was ill-advised and reflected the mindset of the one-seat majority Opposition, that they could rewrite the rules. In Guyana, the constitution still was supreme; it embraced the principle of proportionality in according seat with the plurality at general elections. Cabinet decried the abandonment and disregard of those constitutional provisions and insisted that such developments would not be condoned nor tolerated, the HPS said. Cabinet has also taken note of the apparent disconnect in the undertakings with regards to the interparliamentary parties dialogue; nevertheless, it continues to encourage such engagements in the interest of all citizens. The two papers totalling, $2,240,901,071 and $3,471,047,823 respectively, seeking approval for expenditure met from the contingencies fund late last year were tabled by Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh on February 10. The law makes provisions for this; however, since a Supplementary Bill is not a budget, it has to be brought to the Parliament to inform the House on how the funds were used. Against this backdrop, there should be no intrigue or grandstanding for approved financial expenditure.
9. Govt seeks legal redress in face of Oppositions disregard for Parliamentary convention, grandstanding, March 7, 2012 The ruling Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) members in Parliament have filed for legal actions at both the level of the constitutional court, as well as Parliament by way of a Motion in an effort to confront the wrongdoings of the parliamentary Opposition. Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that the collaboration between the two parties in Opposition was leading to grossly unprincipled actions, a dispensation that Cabinet is unwilling to accept. Specific attention was paid to the betrayal of parliamentary norms and the abuse of constitutional provisions in the decisions by the combined Opposition. Cabinet further contended that the abandonment and betrayal of parliamentary norms also were evident at decisions made at the committee of supply that considered the financial Papers Seven and Eight, the HPS said. Motions have been drafted and presented at the level of Parliament, questioning those decisions and requesting the House to declare them null and void. Additionally, the governing Party will also be approaching the constitutional court to have those same remedies provided.

14

Government has decried the proceedings of the Tenth Parliament thus far which saw the two Opposition Parties first hijacking the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker; followed by their concerted move to blatantly disregard the proportionality of seats in the selection of the Committee of Selection and subsequently, their refusal to approve some of the items listed in Financial Papers Seven and all in Paper Eight on February 16. Meanwhile, the Government side has and continues to cooperate fully with the Opposition; answering any questions that they ask. When the Ninth Parliament ended in September 2011, no question that was asked by the Opposition was left unanswered. Government has assured that even though the kind of behaviour that is being displayed by the Opposition in the Parliament is not conducive to development of any kind, focus will continue to be placed on the developmental trajectory that has been embarked on.

10. Opposition seeking to undermine projects Guyanese Minister of Finance, March 14, 2012

beneficial

to

Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said contrary to what a small section of the opposition and the media appear to want to assert, Governments track record can withstand comparison as well as compare favourably with any other government in a comparable jurisdiction and, with any of the PPP/Cs predecessors in office. Speaking at Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheons post-Cabinet press briefing, Minister Singh pointed to the vast volumes of documentation and testimony given before Parliamentary Committees, which end up in the hands of all political stakeholders, and by extension, in the hands of and, accessible to Guyanas citizenry. Dr. Singh noted however, that unfortunately, persons dont really look at the vast volumes that have been placed there, instead anecdotal and flippant passing comments are made which is unfortunate. The Finance Minister also pointed out that in Guyanas Parliament the Opposition has an important right to ask questions on any matter of interest to them, and I believe that it is something that we can be proud of as a nation, that at the end of the Ninth Parliament, no question asked by the Opposition remained unanswered. He emphasised that this again shows that Government is responsive, open and transparent and has nothing to hide. Minister Singh said certain large projects, such as the Marriot Hotel, Amaila Falls and the airport expansion projects have huge potential for a transformative impact on Guyana, however, certain sections of the media and political Opposition appear content to pursue a narrow agenda designed solely to undermine and besmirch these projects. We have no difficulty answering any questions and providing any documentation in relation to these projects, and instead of making insinuations, many of which are clearly designed to mislead, I believe that the Opposition would be well advised to acquaint themselves with facts. He urged that they focus on the facts and form an informed conclusion about the project, instead of simply opposing for opposing sake, or undermining for undermining sake.

15

The Minister noted that these are projects that will improve the lives of Guyanese while creating jobs, as well as improving the business environment and thus the quality of life. Reiterating that given the obvious beneficial acts for Guyana which are in favour of the people, Minister Singh stated that he can only conclude that, the insinuations being made by the opposition, are being made to undermine these projects, because of the positive impacts that the projects will have on our country. Its clearly a political motivation to undermine the projects, he reiterated. 11. Ruling Partys objections on composition of committees, denial of consent for supplementary expenses, warrant decisions- HPS, March 14, 2012 Government is expecting explanations and decisions of the Speaker and the Parliamentary Opposition with regards to their response to the studied objections registered by the governing Peoples Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C), at the March 15 sitting of the National Assembly. Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President, said that the imminent sitting is expected to be one of great interest and questioned, how will the Oppositions alliance deal with the governing parties pronounced sentiments against the dis-proportionality in the composition of the committees that has been spawned in the Tenth Parliament? He questioned too, the final resolution of the Oppositions denial of authorisation of legitimately contracted supplementary expenditure for 2011, which were outlined in the Financial Papers that were tabled in the House by Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh in February. These and other questions, the HPS said, warrant answers and March 15 is seen as the occasion for the Parliamentary Opposition to give further evidence of how they intend to engage in their contributions to cooperation and collaboration with the governing Party. Those matters we feel would be pronounced on and, the decisions will be of interest to all Guyanese, he said. Motions have been drafted and presented at the level of Parliament, questioning decisions made by the Parliamentary Opposition to deny authorised supplementary expenditure their support and requesting the House to declare decisions, null and void. Additionally, at the level of the constitutional court, the governing Party is seeking to have those same remedies provided. 12. Oppositions objections against supplementary papers baseless, show of political muscle-flexing-Minister Singh, March 16, 2012 Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, said that the March 15 sitting of the National Assembly saw several significant and favourable developments; foremost of which was the approval of Financial Paper Eight. He said members of the Parliamentary Opposition made attempts to frustrate the consideration and approval of certain items in Supplementary Paper Seven and the entire Paper Eight by advancing frivolous and
16

baseless arguments; several straight-forward items were questioned and in some instances opposed without any reason grounded in objectivity and rationality. This he said, is enough to lead one to the inevitable conclusion that this was merely, a flexing of political muscle and power for the sake of demonstrating what the majority of one could do in the Parliament without rhyme or reason. Notwithstanding these efforts, Government stood firm in its articulation of arguments to demonstrate that the Oppositions objections were baseless and should not be accommodated under the Standing Orders which govern the operations of the Parliament. Prime Minister and Leader of the House, Samuel Hinds, subsequently made a detailed submission on the issue making reference to relevant statutes and standing orders in Guyana, as well as comparable jurisdictions and the authoritative source on parliamentary matters by Erskine May, which is typically used as guidance on matters not covered by the countrys own standing orders. Having considered the arguments put forward by Government, delivered two significant rulings; whereby in relation to paper seven, he ruled that whilst the National Assembly acted in accordance with the relevant standing orders in considering the paper, the Minister could return to the House for reconsideration of the items that were not approved. Given what transpired at the last sitting, the Speakers recognition and ruling that the items could be re-submitted is an outcome that we would have to work with it is my intention to bring them back to the National Assembly for reconsideration and I hope that on that occasion they will be favourably considered, the Minister said. Discussions would have to be held with technical staff from the Parliament Office and the standing orders and other existing precedence will have to be studied in order to identify the form in which the re-committal of the four unapproved items will be done. With regards to Financial Paper Eight, the Speakers ruling disallowed and rejected the attempts made by A Partnership for National Unitys (APNUs) point-person on financial matters, Carl Greenidge to frustrate the approval of this paper. The Government welcomed and was pleased at the Speakers findings in favour of the merit so four argument on this matter, he said. When his previous attempts failed, Greenidge again tried to raise objections as to why consideration of paper eight should not be proceeded with, and was again disallowed by the Speaker. The Supplementary Paper Eight was then passed in its entirety, an outcome that Government regards as positive. It is not insignificant to note that notwithstanding the Speakers ruling and the evident merit of the items on the financial paper and Governments repeated affirmation that we are available and willing to answer questions in relation to any of the items, it is significant to note that the Opposition Parties in Parliament did not see it fit to give the items under consideration, their support, neither Opposition Party voted in favour of the items, Minister Singh lamented. APNU members voted against the approval of the paper; while AFC members withheld theirs. The Minister said that Financial Paper Eight was special in character, in that all
17

of its items addressed donor-funded projects, for which, as a tradition, the House normally extend sits unanimous support. He said that the four pending items notwithstanding, result from the most recent sitting, and put to rest, the arguments that have historically been made about the appropriateness of the Governments resort to the contingencies fund and added there is sufficient cause for concern that the Opposition did not see it fit to vote on the items based on their merits. As a Government we will continue to work for the development of our country; we will not let the task of development be slowed in anyway; we will not be diverted from our objectives of advancing economic growth and social development of Guyana. We repeat the call to the Opposition to join us in support of this effort and to desist from the temptation of wielding the power of the majority of one, solely for the purposes of demonstrating political might. Such behaviour is not consistent with an Opposition committed to development, the Finance Minister said. With regards to the Oppositions claims that sufficient information on the expenditures were not provided in Financial Paper Eight, Minister Singh said that financial papers are not documents that stand in isolation from context. He explained that the papers indicate clearly, the agency and the relevant projects codes to which the items relate, the amounts budgeted and the additional amounts being sought. As such, they have to be read in conjunction with the estimates that were approved in the National Assembly. Those estimates provide in relation to each project, abundant details with regards to the nature and scope of the project, and total anticipating costs among others; so it is not the case that information is not before the House and in the public domain in relation to these projects, he said. 13. Parliament should await court ruling before setting up committees, March 16, 2012 Prime Minister and Leader of the Government side of the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds today sent a letter to Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman requesting him to suspend further meetings to set up committees in deference to the proceedings being played out in the High Court; failing which it will be obliged to withhold its participation in the House. The Prime Minister made this disclosure at a press conference of which Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh and Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira were also a part at the Office of the President. At the March 15 sitting of the National Assembly, Government deferred its Motion on the composition of the Committee of Selection in light of the move to the High Court to address a number of matters on the application of the clauses in the constitution that were relevant to the makeup of the committees. Government was invited to a meeting this afternoon to discuss and elect chairpersons to the various committees including the four sectoral committees; however, it does not deem this arrangement to be correct. The Prime Ministers letter to the Speaker stated that the Motion that was moved by the Opposition before the closing of last evenings sitting to enable them to bring the
18

Motions on March 21 to amend the Standing Orders with regards to the size and composition of the parliamentary management committee and the four sectoral committees, not only flies in the face of the matter before the High Court but, also Standing Order 26 (G). Governments position to withhold its participation in the Parliament if this request is denied, Prime Minister Hinds said is consistent with the position that led to the deferral of its Motion at the March 15 sitting. In the letter, the Prime Minister urged the Speaker to uphold the constitution and the law in this Tenth Parliament and prevent the House from being in contempt of the High Court. Our position is that until the matter in the High Court is determined, we should not proceed with any arrangements to set up these committees, PM Hinds said. Standing Order 94 states that every select committee shall be so constituted so as to ensure as far as possible, that the balance of Parties is reflected. In the November 28 general and regional elections, the Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) won 49.23 percent of the votes, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) - 40 percent, and Alliance for Chang (AFC)-10.76percent. With those percentages being received by the different Parties at the last elections, that the makeup of the Committees should reflect as closely as possible, that ratio, the Prime Minister said. On February 10, the two Parliamentary Opposition Parties teamed up to seize control of the Committee of Selection; voting against Governments proposal of 10 members (5PPP/C, 4-APNU, 1-AFC) and adopting a disproportional nine-member distribution (PPP/C-4, APNU-4, AFC-1). This four-four certainly does not reflect 49 and 40 percentthe committee of 10 allows for a better reflection of the votes received by the various Parties and the number of seats they have in Parliament and it is quite proper for the court to make a ruling, taking into account the relevant laws of our constitutionand we think that the Speaker and other members of the Parliament should await that ruling before proceeding further to set up those committees, the Prime minister reiterated. 14. Opposition guilty of Constitutional violation , March 16, 2012 Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira today during a press briefing to clarify issues that directly affect the functioning of the National Assembly accused the opposition of violating the Constitution, an ominous development in the Parliament of Guyana and a threat to democracy. She said it is being done with recklessness and a blatant opportunism that flies in the face of their (oppositions) own declaration of working towards cooperation and partnership. The PPPC Chief Whip explained that after gaining Republican status in 1970, Guyana became a republic with an Executive President in 1980 and in 1999/2003 continued that framework. As such, Guyana is a Republican State with an Executive President, in which the party which gets the largest bloc of votes takes the Government. Teixeira however, stated that Guyanas Constitution is not a Westminster Parliamentary system, but a hybrid Republican Westminster Parliamentary System.
19

This, she explained is important to understand, before getting confused with other Parliamentary systems in Commonwealth countries which could be on a first past the post system. Teixeira further explained that Guyana is on a proportional representation electoral system which is not first past the post. She added that the proportionally issue which is worked out, both in the electoral system and by the constitution, by the Guyana Elections Commission Act, makes it clear how that proportionality is devised in a mathematical formula, in relation to the geographic states and the national top up seats. We at the last elections were the party with the largest bloc of votes that is incontestable. No matter which way you cut it and turn it upside downit is true that no party has an absolute majority, but there is a difference between not having an absolute majority, and being the party that has the largest bloc of votes in the parliament resultingfromthe2011elections,she said. The Presidential Advisor stated that the charade being played out in Parliament by the dictatorship of one is trying to confuse the public in relation to their farcical calculations and presentations. The PPP/C has 32 seats in the parliament, as the largest party with the largest bloc of votes, it has constitutionally, legally, lawfully, both the Presidency and the Government, she said. Noting that the difference between the votes of the APNU and the PPP/C is somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 votes, she pointed to an American elections with George Bush and the famous issue where there were 33,000 votes between George Bush Jr. and the Democrats Presidential Candidate, noting that the congress continued to operate according to the rules in the Constitution of the United States. The difference between the PPP/C and the Alliance For Change (AFC) is over 80,000 votes, and therefore this attempt to mathematically confuse the Guyanese population must be addressed. No matter which way you cut it, the Government is the Government and we have the largest bloc, she declared. The Constitution of Guyana does not recognise in the allocation of seats two sides of the house, Teixeira explained further as, it recognises parties and parties electoral strength. In the parliament there are two sides, government and opposition, who may from time to time agree or disagree. This issue is a critical issue and this is the crux of the issue before the courts. Is the Guyana constitution being violated by the dictatorship of one, both in the house and in the committee of selection? she asked. She reminded of attempts by President Donald Ramotar at the Inter Parliamentary Political Dialogue, IPPD, to reach consensus which fell flat on its face, beginning with the issue of the Speaker. We went on to discussions on the committees composition, where we said and gave the formula mathematically to show that 10, which is traditionally the size of the committee we have, on that basis that it would reflect Standing Order 94, which talks as far as possible to the issues of proportionality and would uphold the constitution and the constitutional provisions.

20

She continued that, In the talks, violently opposed by the APNU and the AFC, we offered a compromise with five for the Government, four for APNU one for the AFC. They used their majority in the house to overturn what is considered a compromise by this Government and therefore they have in fact violated the constitution. By giving the PPP four seats, they reduced the committees then. In the Committee of Selection at the first meetingthey reduced all to 9 with the formula of four PPP, four APNU, and one AFC. The Presidential Advisor further referred to the Committees in the Standing Orders where specific reference is made to size. The Parliamentary Management Committee which says five for Government and five for the Opposition, Speaker is the chair; Sectoral Committees - four, for Government, three for Opposition, one and two alternate each, They gave notice that they are bringing a Motion to amend the Standing Orders to reconfigure them to the size nine and obviously the same 4, 4, 1, formula, Teixeira emphasised. Traditionally for gridlock in committees the recourse has always been for the House to resolve it, and obviously in this House the power won, works both in the Committee and in the House. So the gridlock argument is a farce. Its a sham, an absolute sham. Secondly, she noted, that in the Parliamentary Management Committee and the four Sectoral Committees, the amendments that were brought, both to the Constitution and to the Standing Orders came out of negotiations with the PNC in thepost1997, 1999 and 2001 elections. Communiqus were signed by Robert Corbin and President Bharat Jagdeo in terms of the configuration of these committees, in the recognition for building harmony and social cohesion. Even though the PPP/C had a majority in 2001 of approximately 52% and 54.7% in 2006 the issue of parity in the Parliamentary Management Committee was upheld. If we were behaving like the AFC and the APNU, we could have in the 9th Parliament said that weve got 54.7% of the electorate, lets bring the Standing Orders, and let us change them. Throw out the parity of 5, 5. However, she noted that as a principled government, the PPP/C negotiated these issues in the interest of national unity, social cohesion and inclusive governance in 2001 and 2003. Those draft Standing Orders were negotiated word for word with luminaries on both sides, such as Dr. Luncheon, Lance Carberry and Winston Murray. And at the drop of the hat, with the power of one, they want to destroy what have been attempts to build a constructive engagement between the political parties of this country, she stated. One is aware that before the end of March our Minister (of Finance) will bring a Budget. The Chief Whip on the Opposition side called for a sitting for next week Wednesday, (March) 21, which as an Opposition they are entitled but, to bring the three motions, two of which deal with changing the Standing Orders in relation to the Parliamentary Management Committee, and the four Sectoral committees. The motion is being brought before the House on Wednesday, whilst a Constitutional Motion is before the High Court and therefore, the Prime Ministers letter to the Speaker, appealing to him to not put this Parliament in contempt of the High Court.
21

She also pointed out another example of the dictatorship of one, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Guyana branch. This was resuscitated under former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran, and we negotiated in the Parliamentary Management Committee the sizeand this was taken to the House in June 2007. The CPA Guyana branch is 14 members - Speaker, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the House, and then it defines who else makes up the members in Guyana. The total numbers for the Government side is seven, for the opposition, on which all the political parties on both sides must sit is six. Lo and behold we get a letter advising us that we are to name five members. We have lodged a complaint, she said, adding, we want to assure the public that we will continue to put our case, not in terms of Government, but we believe that our role as custodians of the constitution and the democracy that we fought for so hard in this country, and we will continue to represent, and we will continue to have maybe one or two little victories here and there, but we will continue. We are not being muzzled by this dictatorship of one. 15. Parliamentary committees make-up must reflect parties seat allocation-AG -Opposition formula in breach of principle of proportionality, March 17, 2012 Ever since the commencement of the Tenth Parliament, the government and the opposition have been diametrically opposed to a number of issues. One issue on the governments side is the composition of the parliamentary committees, which it feels is not being done according to the principle of proportionality. On March 7, government through the Attorney General moved to the High Court to challenge the manner in which those committees are being set up and piloted primarily by the opposition. Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall in a recent programme on the National Communications Network explained that governments High Court motion challenges the manner in which the opposition in parliament is moving in constituting the committees. It is contended in the motion on the part of the government that the composition of the committees violates the principle of proportionality, the Attorney General said. In Guyana, the electoral system is based on proportionality. It is recognised expressly in the constitution and the laws of Guyanaessentially seats are allocated in the National Assembly to the parties that have contested the elections based on the principle of proportionalitythe higher number of votes you get is proportional to the seats that you will receive, the Attorney General explained. He added that the PPP/C has been allocated 32 seats, whilst APNU has 26 and the AFC 7, which is based on and proportionate to the number of votes that they received at the last general elections. A mathematical calculation on the percentage of seats in the National Assembly will reveal that the PPP with its 32 seats controls 49.2% of the seats in parliament which is nearly 50%as such it is only fair, logical and constitutional that
22

we get that percentage of representation in the committee stagethat is what the motion seeks to do, Minister Nandlall said. He said that the standing orders tell that these committees can consist of not less than 6 and not more than 10 members, therefore the standing orders itself in recognising the principle of proportionality itself has given the National Assembly a degree of flexibility to find a composition that is as close as possible to the makeup of the House so to capture this principle. We are saying that a size of 10 would best reflect the composition of the National AssemblyPPP would get 5 seats equivalent to its 50% seats APNU 4 and AFC 1however, the opposition is using nine and the allocation runs as follows- PPP-4, APNU-4 and AFC 1this violates the principle of proportionality and is disproportionate to the percentage of seats which we have in the National Assembly because we have 50% of the seats and 4 is not a reflection of the percentagethey are equating us with APNU who has 40% of the seats and there is a 30,000 vote difference between 40% of APNU and 49.2% of the PPPthat is in violation of the proportionality principle which the constitution embracesthat is what we are seeking to rectify in the court, hoping that parliament can constitute the committees in a manner that is contemplated, provided for and captured by the constitution, Minister Nandlall said. Minister Nandlall said that the committees of parliament undertake very important work; as such their composition must be reflected in every aspect of the National Assembly as it sits to undertake its work. The committees have a very important role to play in our parliamentary system, they are responsible for monitoring governments policy and scrutinising the conduct of governmentthat is a role that the administration recognises and has set up most of these committees and made them functionalwe have amended the standing order to give the committees more powersevery aspect of government is reviewable by the committee system which we have in place, Minister Nandlall said. Some of the committees that exist are; a foreign relations, natural resources, economic services public accounts and constitutional reform. We will never try to manipulate or control the work of the committees of parliamentit is not our intentionwe are saying that we have the most seats in terms of party and that must be reflected in the committees, Minister Nandlall said. 16. Established parliamentary rules cannot be wished away-Teixeira -opposition motions put off due to lack of required documents, March 21, 2012 The three Motions put forward by the Opposition to be tabled in the National Assembly were today deferred to March 30 after members on the Government presented convincing arguments; citing the absence of the necessary documents accompanying the Motions. Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Leader of the House explained that all three Motions seek to amend various sections of the Standing Orders and as such, unless the Speaker of the House directs otherwise, notice accompanied by the draft of the proposed
23

amendments had to be submitted to the Parliament Office, which are subsequently circulated to parliamentarians. However, there were no proposed amendments ccompanying the Motions that were slated to betabled. He further explained that the requirement of Standing Order 111 (1), which deals with the amendments of Standing Orders, had not been met and as such the Motions were not properly before the House. A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) member, Basil William, who is the mover of one of the three Motions, said that the rules were not made to hinder the internal business of the House and submitted that the Speaker is empowered to use his discretion to allow for the tabling of the Motion notwithstanding the unmet requirements. Alliance for Change (AFC) member, Khemraj Ramjattan stated that the established Standing Orders should not be seen as mandatory. Meanwhile, Governments Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira urged the House not to fall prey to capriciousness as the rules have been developed overtime. In July last year, the same rules were again revised at a parliamentary select committee comprised of members from all the Parties. Whether it is an oversight or not, the reason why the draft amendment is included in Standing Order 111 (1), is to allow the House to know the exact wording of the amendment that is being brought to the Standing Orders. It is an important inclusionthere are reasons why Parliaments work with certain rules and discipline, Teixeira said. She also reminded that the Standing Orders Committee report of 2007 dealt with two amendments that were brought to the National Assembly, both of which were accompanied by draft amendments and went directly to the Standing Orders Committee. She said that since then, nothing has changed in terms of compliance and respect to what the House stands for and added that, if a member wants to move a suspension of the Standing Orders, he/she has a right to do so, but it must be done after written notice is given within the required time frame. The Chief Whip also warned that this level of capriciousness displayed by the Opposition puts the Parliament on a dangerous pathway. All of us in this House, cannot at every sitting, be wishing away bits of the Standing Orders as it suits us and when it suits us, Teixeira said. The Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on the matter said that changing the makeup of the committees, does harm to certain provisions in the Constitution and even existing Standing Orders and for this same reason, Government has had to move to the court. He maintained that in light of this, consideration of Motions such as these, should await the ruling of the court. After a brief 10-minute suspension, the Speaker in his ruling said that there must be a copy of the proposed amendments accompanying the Motion; noting that the Clerk admitted that he has erred by allowing for the Motions to be printed on the Order Paper without the requisite amendments being attached. Using his discretion, he agreed to abridge the timeframe for which notice of the Motion should be given from 12 days to 48
24

hours. The matter will be dealt with at the next sitting of the House on March 30, at which date Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, will present the 2012 National Budget. 17. Opposition violation of Constitution erodes democratic gains President, March 23, 2012 President Donald Ramotar maintains that A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) are squandering the opportunity to work with the Government and, that the Governments move to the High Court is to protect the sanctity of parliamentary democracy. Addressing members of the media during a press conference today at Office of the President, the Head of State said that his continued monitoring of the situation in Parliament clearly shows that, APNU and the AFC are squandering the opportunity of working together with us in the interest of our nation. They are violating all parliamentary norms and practices. He pointed out that since the commencement of the Tenth Parliament there have been willful efforts of the two parties to create a hostile atmosphere in the Chambers whilst being uncooperative and disruptive. The Head of State suggested that the impression given is that they are trying to reverse the democratic gains made since 1992. The parliament will be characterised, I believe as a dictatorship of one by the APNU and the AFC; neither one having won individually, a majority of votes over the lawful PPP/C Government which has the largest bloc of votes, he stated. The President also slammed the two parties for ignoring the principle of proportionality, explaining that continued attempts to sow confusion was reflected in APNUs rejection of the suggestion for a forensic audit of the November 28, 2011 General Elections results whilst they continued to play a victim. He described that act by the opposition parties as a travesty, revealed from the very first meeting to elect the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Despite efforts on my part, said the President, on meeting individually, with the APNU and AFC and collectively at the inter-parliamentary dialogue, to reach consensus, the APNU and AFC plunged ahead to elect an AFC Speaker and APNU Deputy, thus breaking completely with traditions of Parliament. The second instance came with the election of the Committee of Selection on the floor of the House. Again we had discussed this at our meetings. The Government raised the issue of the size and composition of members of the Parliamentary Committees and, to uphold the constitutional provisions with regard to proportionality of the electoral strength of the parties at the elections. Both APNU and AFC totally ignored this and proceeded to take a majority on the committee of selection, President Ramotar stated. Governments proposal was five for the PPP/C, four for APNU and one for AFC, an allocation which would more accurately reflect proportionality of each partys strength at the polls. The APNU and AFC formula of equal seats for the Government and APNU and one for the AFC, makes a mockery of the principle of proportionality, declared the President.
25

He noted that during the Ninth Parliament, even when we had an absolute majority, it was we who set up the Parliamentary Management Committee and, we had allowed five seats to the opposition and Government had five, with the Speaker chairing this Committee. But here again we see the tendencies of the opposition at the first meeting of the Committee of Selection to implement their formula for all committees and to bring Motions to amend those Committees where it clearly states that the Government has the majority they have moved to change that in the rules. The PPP/C has been allocated 32 seats, APNU 26 and the AFC 7, which is based on and proportionate to the number of votes that they received at the elections. Mathematical calculation on the percentage of seats in the National Assembly will show that the PPP with its 32 seats controls 49.2% of the seats in parliament which is nearly 50%. This would mean the PPP would get 5 seats equivalent to its 50% seats, APNU 4 and AFC 1however; the opposition is using 9 and the following allocation: PPP-4, APNU-4 and AFC 1. Governments approach to the High Court on these violations of the constitution is a significant step to protect the sanctity of the constitution and stop the blatant and reckless disregard for parliamentary democracy, stated the President. It has also indicated to the Speaker that it will not participate in the elections of Chairpersons, in deference to the proceedings before the High Court. However, the Committee under the Speakers chairmanship proceeded to elect APNU to chair three Parliamentary Committees, while others are assumedly pending their amendment of the Standing Orders to give Government a minority on the Parliamentary Management Committee and the four Sectoral committees. The Speaker of the National Assembly now chairs seven Parliamentary committees. Another instance of violation of the Constitution relates to the supplementary financial papers, where Government raised its concerns with the Speaker regarding the erosion of the Standing Orders and parliamentary customs and practices. President Ramotar pointed out that, The most recent case at the March 21 sitting (of the National Assembly) with regard to their own amendments to the Standing Orders, demonstrates their own disregard of these provisions. Governments protest led to the Speaker upholding these Standing Orders, he added. The measures being pursued by APNU and AFC are intended to undermine the democratic gains made in Parliamentary democracy since 1992, he asserted. 18. APNU continues to sow confusion - President Ramotar, March 23, 2012 President Donald Ramotar has categorically stated that the continued attempts by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to sow confusion are meant to affect the country and urged that leaders must look to, and build for the future. He posited that the coalition seeks to justify its behaviour after the November 28, 2011 elections, rather than admitting that it is deliberately misleading its supporters and the nation and should offer an apology, he told media operatives at a press conference at
26

his office today. What they are trying to do now is to affect the progress that this country is making. The fact that we are going to build a hydro-electric power station, work towards building the road from the Coast to Lethem, a new deep water harbour, proper hotel of international standard that will make Guyana a destination for important conferences - these seem the target of these attacks that we are seeing in the press, he said. In highlighting the unprincipled behavior of the party, President Ramotar explained that after the 2006 General Elections, independent observers said that the data base that we had at GECOM was the best this country had and it should be built upon. The PNC then started to insist and make threats, he said. That party insisted on a new house to house registration process. We had an agreement that we will go ahead with a new registration process, abandoning the data base that was recognised as the best data base in Guyana, under the agreement that there will be no questions in the elections. But you see what has happened and how unprincipled they are. He suggested that APNU leaders should tell the nation why, if it (the party) is so concerned about the elections results, why did they along with the AFC, reject the proposal, I made to them when they first raised this matter to me immediately after the elections, that we should have a forensic audit of the elections. Let us go back into the box as we did after the 1997 elections so we could see what was the real results if they had any doubts in their mind, declared the President, stating that it was unfortunate that after the attempts to block a re-verification of the election results, APNU continues to paint itself as a victim in the process. The President declared that what APNU has also done, is to bring into question, the integrity and competence of its very own supporters and polling agents, who were also either scrutineers and or counting agents. They were also several instances where former known PNC/R scrutineers and other officials were directly employed on Elections Day by GECOM in various roles, he added. He pointed to the fact that there is documented evidence about PPP/C polling agents and scrutineers being refused entry into polling stations. He reiterated his earlier statements that there were several instances of malpractice between strategically placed GECOM officials who infiltrated the system and APNU. President Ramotar remains confident that the PPP/C did have a decisive victory of more than 50% of the votes at the last national elections. Referring to a recent APNU press statement, President Ramotar stated that they, the PNC party which is the largest of the coalition, are trying to rewrite history and hide from their past, A party that made Guyana move from being the most developed country in the region in 1964, to the most backward country by 1992. He stated, They talk about corruption but they havent yet explained to us the deal with GT&T when they were privatising the GT&T. These people who have the worst history of corruptionmaking accusations against this government.
27

19. Opposition alliance reckless and relentless HPS - Govt cautious of their Budget 2012 reception, March 28, 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today, said that while the APNU/AFC alliance has contrived to hold both Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the House; they are embracing the constitution of seats, to further consolidate their control. Cabinet being informed of the Chief Justices ruling felt it would be of interest, the position to be adopted by the Speaker, as he reacts to that ruling that affirms, the matter is properly before the constitutional court, Dr. Luncheon pronounced. The Chief Justice recently ruled that the court has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional motion brought by the Government against the Opposition leaders with respect to the take-up of the parliamentary committees. The PPP/C has been allocated 32 seats, APNU 26 and the AFC 7, which is based on and proportionate to the number of votes that they received at the November 2011elections. Mathematical calculation on the percentage of seats in the National Assembly will show that the PPP with its 32 seats controls 49.2% of the seats in parliament which is nearly 50%. This would mean the PPP would get 5 seats equivalent to its 50% seats, APNU 4 and AFC 1 However; the opposition is using 9 and the following allocation: PPP-4, APNU-4 and AFC 1. Governments approach to the High Court on these violations of the constitution is a significant step to protect the sanctity of the constitution and stop the blatant and reckless disregard for parliamentary democracy. Dr Luncheon stated that while the Finance Minister prepares to present the 2012 budget estimates, Cabinet is cautious of the reception and treatment to be meted out by the Opposition Alliance parties. He added that while suspicions are hardening about the Oppositions malevolent intentions, their reactions would in fact make an important contribution for Guyanese to assess their motives towards development. Suspicions are hardening understandably so, that those intentions of the alliance are malicious and consequently those intentions once orchestrated, the impact on the interparty inter-parliamentary party dialogue impact would reverberateThe parliamentary alliance of the opposition parties, by deed has essentially established the basis for those concerns, worse yet by their words, Dr. Luncheon said. In addition, Dr. Luncheon maintained that because the Parliamentary Opposition continues to enjoy the one-seat majority in the National Assembly, it would be reasonable for Guyanese to anticipate that there would not be a passage and consideration of the 2012 estimates, as it is likely that the National Budget will be
28

treated with the same extremity as other important Bills already tabled in the Tenth Parliament. On March 7, Government moved to the High Court challenging the manner in which the parliamentary committees were being established and piloted by the Opposition, and Dr. Luncheon questioned whether the Opposition would indeed abide by the spirit of the convention and let the court ruling prevail. 20. Opposition back peddles claims changing Parliamentary Committees make up a mere irregularity AG, March 30, 2012 Press statements sent out this week by the main Opposition party A Partnership for National Unity is an attempt at back peddling from their original proposition which was that the Court had no jurisdiction over Parliament and the National Assembly. The APNU statements reflected the ruling of Chief Justice Ian Chang and also stated that the steps taken by the Parliamentary Opposition in no way violated the Constitution of Guyana. The Parliamentary Opposition, which has a one seat majority in the National Assembly, had made steps to change the composition of Parliamentary Committees in favour of the opposition. The Government sought redress from the Court stating that this action by the Opposition violated the Constitution. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the principal objection raised in the Court against the motion by Government, was that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the proceedings or the procedures of Parliament. He noted that this objection stated clearly the Oppositions view that the business of Parliament is beyond the reach of the Court. That objection has however, been overruled by the Court, which stated very clearly that it has the power, the responsibility and the duty to review any aspects of Parliaments business to enquire whether the Constitution has been contravened. Minister Nandlall stated that the release sent out this week, is an attempt at back peddling from their original proposition which was that the court had no jurisdiction. That is the first proposition they advanced. The second proposition was that assuming the court has jurisdiction, the Court ought not to enquire into this particular matter, which is the composition of the committees, because according to them, it is a mere irregularity and it does not violate the constitution. He explained that in terms of jurisdiction, the opposition is now claiming that the court will not have the jurisdiction to enquire into a mere irregularity, that is what they are saying. Its just because the Court has overruled their principal submission, they are now back peddling in an attempt to modify what they have originally submitted to the court, the Minister said. He noted however, that the Chief Justice has made it very clear that he has recorded accurately what the objections were, and the Chief Justice has not recanted from his recording from what their submissions were. It remains a question of jurisdiction.
29

21. Oppositions budget presentations political rhetoric- Minister Singh -Calls on them not to misuse one-seat majority, April 17, 2012 The curtains came down this evening on the debates on the 2012 national budget with Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, who observing that the Opposition has squandered yet another opportunity individually and collectively cooperate with the Government in the interest of Guyana and its people. He noted that uniqueness of the current parliamentary configuration presented members opportunities to demonstrate their willingness to rise to the occasion; however this was not seized by the Opposition; instead they resorted to opposing merely for the sake of opposing. He reminded the House that the budget debate was never intended to be a contest of oratorical versatility or an exhibition of hooliganism and linguistic or poetic abilities; instead it presented the opportunity for a competition of ideas, particularly given the current configuration of the House. Budget Theme Referring to the theme of budget 2012, Remaining on Course, United in Purpose, Prosperity for All, Minister Singh said that, it was not casually formulated; but rather is the result of considerable reflection of the part of Government and represented the outcome of efforts intended to capture the essence of where the country is and, what needs to be accomplished in order to arrive at the destination to which every Guyanese aspires. The theme was built on a premise that our country has been advancing along a path of progress... a path towards a modern and prosperous Guyana with most elements to which very few would disagree...one could scarcely argue with the admonition that we remain on course, on this path, redoubling our resolve to working more closely together as we pursue the objectives of generating prosperity for our country, the Finance Minister stated. Besmirching professionalism Minister Singh rebuked Alliance for Changes (AFCs) Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan for casting aspersions on the economic statistics that were produced by hardworking professionals within the Government agencies. He stated that the National Bureau of Statistics (whose work and integrity Ramjattan attempted to question), is headed by a very capable, long-standing professional of over 40 years of experience in official statistics. These people are not politicians...professional civil servants are not people who like to enter the political fray, it is downright irresponsible for members in this House to stand up and besmirch their professionalism, he asserted. Economy Rebasing Responding to Ramjattans talk of rebasing Guyanas economy, the Minister explained that this has been a matter that has long been recognised by the PPP/C. The countrys
30

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was last rebased in 1988 when the economy was fundamentally different in structure from that which obtains today and, has never been a matter of dispute. Countries all over the world rebase their GDP periodically and Guyana is no different. Moreover, this rebasing was done the benefit of extensive assistance from reputable international organisations such as the International Monetary Funds (IMFs) Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Center, which scrutinize the countrys economic statistics. Further, in the process of rebasing Guyanas Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket, assistance was garnered from the United States Census Bureau. Donkey-cart economy With regards to Ramjattans reference to a donkey-cart economy, Minister Singh said that, We might not be where we want to be, I doubt that we will ever be where we want to be...the task of national upliftment just like the task of personal betterment, is never complete. He said that if all Parties are to engage in sincere and frank discussions about where the country is headed, people must at very least, show willingness to be honest and added that, to pretend that nothing is happening in Guyana; that we are not moving in the right direction and that there have been no obvious improvements, is dishonesty and an exercise in self-delusion. Lack of objectivity Minister Singh lamented that time and time again, Government has sought to make available vast volumes of documents on various entities and projects such as the Amaila Falls and Marriot hotel to members of the Opposition; however, upon receipt of such documentation, only passing comments are made with regards to those projects and benefits they seek to create. In fact, the major projects that Government has embarked on were described as fanciful projects by Ramjattan. It is alarming that people who would be willing to say that is a good thing in private...but when they come to the National Assembly they are not prepared to say that...it calls into question the sincerity of the Opposition to have meaningful engagements for the development of this country, Minister Singh said. He added too, that throughout the presentations over that past few days, no one from the Opposition benches came forward with any meaningful comments on projects such as the Amaila Falls; instead they resorted to repeat the same rhetoric simply for the sake of political mileage. I do not expect for them to say that they agree with everything in the budget, but I expect at the very least, some degree of objectivity, he reminded.
31

Hydropower Minister Singh commended the presentation made by Leader of the Opposition, David Granger, and said that the Government is in agreement with many of the objectives that he outlined but, lamented the fact that those same principles were not embraced by the members of his Party, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) as illustrated over the past six days. Responding to Grangers question about what is being done for the manufacturing sector, the Finance Singh explained that while it will not put money directly into the sector, it is investing in factors that affect or influence it. Recognising that the one impediment to more rapid growth in the manufacturing sector is affordable power, the Administration is investing in the Amaila Falls project which will reduce the cost of power and remove the need for redundant power from investors. There is no investment that is better for this country than that of hydropower, he maintained. Misleading Mathematics Minister Singh exposed the inaccurate calculations quoted by AFC member, Moses Nagamootoo in his attempt convinced the House that Guyanas external debt is higher today that it was in 1992. Nagamootoo said that at the prevailing exchange rate of 125:1, the 1992 debt was $252.5B. He added that today, in spite of write-offs, cancellations and rescheduling, the national debt stands at $1.2B, which at the current rate at 207:1 amounts of $253.4B, nearly $1B more than it was 20 years ago. Minister Singh said that firstly, two nominal numbers cannot be computed at two disparate points in times. He then proceeded to explain a mathematical breakdown to the House using Nagamootoos numbers to show the inconsistency in his calculations. VAT Throughout the course of the debates much has been said about the Value Added Tax (VAT) by Opposition members who described it as a burden on citizens and called for a reduction. A reduction in the VAT will bring little to no benefits to the people in this country; in fact, the most vulnerable will benefit the least from a cut in VAT...if you wish to assist the most vulnerable in our society, a cut in VAT is the least efficient way to do it, Minister Singh explained. He explained that people earning modest incomes would purchase all of the basic food items that are zero-rated on VAT and the only VAT-able items would be clothing and telephone bill. On the other hand, a wealthier person would purchase zero-rated basic food items as well as imported and processed items that are VAT-able. This hypothetical person will also incur costs for cable/internet, entertainment (bars, restaurants etc) and other luxury items.
32

VAT is a tax on consumption; as such those who consume modest items would incur a modest VAT bill; while those who consume lavish items would incur a large bill and therefore, stand to benefit most from a cut in the tax. This argument that the poor man will benefit from VAT is a misrepresentation to the people of this country...the VAT that a wealthy person will save from a flat-screen TV bought, will be more than the VAT saved by a poor person for an entire year on everything he/she will buy, he explained. The Minister called for judicious conduct from all members of the House over the next six days when the estimates of expenditure will be considered. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not use this tyranny of one to cut solely for the purpose of cutting. It is the people of Guyana, who benefit from the services provided under these programmes, he said. 22. Parliament cannot dismiss workers willy-nilly, April 18, 2012 In light of a document that was circulated amongst members of the National Assembly last evening, in which the Alliance for Change (AFC) was giving notice of a Motion to reduce the provisions of the estimates of a number of Government agencies, Minister of Labour, Dr. Nanda Gopaul in a statement today urged that workers rights to be respected and protected. If the AFCs proposed slashing of employment costs, particularly as it relates to contract employees, was adopted by the House, Government will in effect, be forced to bring an immediate end to hundreds of public sector employees within Government Departments and agencies. I represent the interests of employers and employees; it is my responsibility to ensure a level playing field for both workers and employers alike. I am also of the firm view that I should protect workers rights and ensure that our employment laws are upheld by all and that the rights that they are entitled to under these laws are scrupulously observed, the Labour Minister highlighted. He noted that such an action, as proposed by the AFC, will result in the flagrant violation of the affected employees terms and conditions of employment as well as a breach of the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act and added that, this must be a matter of concern for all of us in this House since what some legislators are proposing, can have far-reaching employment consequences and affect the livelihoods of hundreds of young, qualified professionals. For any worker to be dismissed, Section 12 of the Act becomes relevant. It states that an employer may terminate the employment of a worker if the worker becomes redundant or where the reduction of the workforce is a direct result of the modernisation, mechanisation or automation by the employer of all or part of his/her business.
33

Dismissal is also permissible in case of the discontinuance by the employer to carry on all or part of the business, sale or other dispossession by the employer of all or part of the business, the reorganisation of the business by the employer, the impossibility or impracticality for the employer to carry on the business at its usual rate or level, mechanical breakdown or an act of God, or reduce operation in a employers business made necessary by economic conditions. Should it become necessary to terminate workers on the above mentioned conditions, then a clear minimum of one months notice must be given to the workers representatives and the Chief Labour Officer. Further, the Act also prohibits termination of employees based on their religious or political beliefs among others. Any violation of the terms of the Act shall cause the employer to be liable on summary conviction to a fine and imprisonment for a period of three months. Minister Gopaul said that this issue is probably the first of its kind that the House is witnessing where Opposition legislators are proposing the immediate dismissal of workers for reasons other than economic and that of affordability. This country is blessed with the economic wherewithal to provide descent employment for all public servants currently on roll, if there is an intention to cause dismissal, sending home or bringing to an end the contract of any employees in the public sector, then recognition must be given to the terms and conditions of the employees contract and the protection offered them under those terms and under the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act never in my contemplation, gracing the halls of this House, would I have expected to witness such a crass approach towards the perusal of our estimates; particularly under the heads which catered for employment, he said. He added that the Parliament cannot willy-nilly or by the stroke of a pen, send home workers in an arbitrary manner. Meanwhile, AFC member, Moses Nagamootoo in a statement said that intention of the Motion was to have Government provide explanations of the various allocations listed in the estimates, which will in turn inform their vote for the passage of those allocations. 23. Opposition alliance unprincipled, vindictive, May 9, 2012 The Chief Justices ruling in the governing Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administrations Constitutional Motion on disproportionality has established a basis A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) to continue their disregard for established rules and procedures in Parliament. Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly postCabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that, still unsettled would be the nature of APNU-AFC alliance anticipated efforts to alter the statutesbound composition of the four parliamentary sectoral committees. All of these four
34

committees have provisions in the constitution that allow for the Government to have a majority. The HPS highlighted that note must be taken of the further vindictive and unprincipled approaches of these two Opposition Parties in undermining the constitution by cutting the annual appropriation expenditure to just $1 for entities under the Office of the President and the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC). The latter is a constitutional rights commission. The Opposition alliance has flouted the constitution and the powers of the Finance Minister, he said, as those powers, captured in constitutional provisions, allowed him to approve the expenditure for the months in any fiscal year prior to the enactment of an appropriation act. In this case, four months of expenditure were authorised for those bodies by the Minister; however, it was removed by the majority APNU-AFC. This, according to Dr. Luncheon speaks volumes for the reckless and vengeful Opposition alliance and their disregard for the constitution. The rejection of their course of action is overwhelming, demonstrated by affected communities and stakeholders all across Guyanathe explanations and excuses that the alliance has since offered has really amounted to nothing of significance, the HPS lamented. On February 10, the two Parliamentary Opposition Parties teamed up to seize control of the Committee of Selection; voting against Governments proposal of 10 members (5PPP/C, 4-APNU, 1-AFC) and adopting a disproportional nine-member distribution (PPP/C-4, APNU-4, AFC-1). In March, Government filed the Constitutional Motion in an effort to correct the issue of disproportionality in light of the fact that the November 28, 2011 polls resulted in the PPP/C wining 49.23 percent of the votes, APNU- 40 percent, and AFC-10.76 percent. Moreover, set parliamentary rules; specifically, Standing Order 94 states that every select committee shall be so constituted so as to ensure as far as possible, that the balance of Parties is reflected. However, last week, Chief Justice Ian Chang dismissed the case, stating that court has no jurisdiction in parliamentary matters. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall has since stated that the ruling is being critically reviewed before the filing of an appeal.

24. NICIL issue concocted and fabricated by Opposition, May 9, 2012 Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh has challenged the Alliance for Change (AFC) party to publicly declare its computations and details on how that party arrived at the sum of
35

$50B being held back from the Consolidated Fund through the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan in a recent press conference declared that the PPP has hidden in excess of $50 B in secret bank accounts and that these monies were largely acquired and routed through NICIL. The Finance Minister during a press conference today stated that since the AFC has stated authoritatively a figure of $50B, They should publish publicly the basis on which they arrived at this $50B. They need to come clean and say to the people of Guyana this is how we arrived at the $50B. Minister Singh stated emphatically that the amount of resources in hand by NICIL is not anywhere near $50B. He noted that the NICIL issue is an attempt at creating a storm in a teacup, and generating an imagined hysteria by one or two politicians. Responding to questions from the media, Minister Singh explained that NICIL operates within the Companies Act since it is registered as a company and so governed. He added that the company being government owned, it is audited by the Auditor Generals office as a group holding company with subsidiaries. Additionally, NICILs consolidated audited financial statements are tabled in Parliament. Minister Singh pointed out also that NICIL has made public details of every single privatisation transaction that it has conducted recently, and during a specially organised seminar to which the press was invited, NICIL disclosed every single transaction, disposal as a corporate entity, property sale, and asset sale. The document recording this was produced and made publicly available. The mode of privatisation, and all other details of the transactions were included in that documentation. The Finance Minister that it is easy and convenient, and politically opportunistic for the opposition instead of referring to those publicly available sources, instead of recognising that we have never hesitated to speak publicly about these transactions they instead concoct and fabricate a controversy where one does not exist. He pointed out that if more information is being sought, a question should be asked properly in the Parliament, and as always, the answer would be provided. Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall who was also present at the press conference endorsed Minister Singhs statement that the Opposition have created this issue, they have created it and the press has assisted them in spinning this thing around. He pointed out that Ramjattan and Nagamootoo were sitting on the PPP side of the bench when the privatisation procedure was presented, debated and unanimously approved by the National Assembly in the mid-90s, and NICIL was identified as the body to do the transactions. He noted that during the previous administration, privatisation was done through about five different entities, for which there was no accounting record of transactions. NICIL has records of all transactions, and a chronicle of those transactions were done, including the names of the people to whom properties were sold, when they were sold,
36

the price for which they were sold. What is the mystery? What other information is there that you need? he asked adding this monster, this phantom controversy has been created and is just out there. And they keep perpetuating that thing. They create this big furor of a motion in the parliament to demand answers. What answers? We can bring a whole wheelbarrow of books tomorrow and give them of reports. We are a responsible political party, and we will continue to engage in the exercise as tedious and as painstaking as it is of explaining over and over again these procedures. Hopefully, we will get the press to help us in the same way they have spun this misinformation out of control, that we spin it back into control. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds pointed to the fact that NICIL which was created by the previous administration has a real role in our society, NICIL is set up there because you still need an agency that would take risks and lead some development where the private sector is reluctant. He pointed to the Berbice River Bridge which was spearheaded by NICIL, and with the problems we had with the Demerara Harbour Bridge, I would like to see NICIL play a role in giving us a fixed bridge across the Demerara (river). So when I hear about putting all the monies into the Consolidated Fund, I think there could only be talking in my view, about the capital money, Prime Minister posited. Minister Singh noted that NICIL as the Government holding company has scored some resounding successes such as the Berbice River Bridge, This is the first instance of private capital being invested in public infrastructure, and this mode of privately financed public infrastructure, is a mode that is recognised around the world. He said, In most other countries you would need an international investment company to do this, to explain the documentation to private investors, to work with them to get them on board. We should be proud in Guyana that we structured that transaction using local expertise and concluded it using local investment and we have to thank NICIL for that. The Prime Minister endorsed this statement adding, If we are talking about building our country, we have to take the responsibility for financing. Institutions like NICL lead the way, going in the risk period, getting it running and pulling out. There are many areas in our development where this is required, and you need and agency to do this, and they need to keep money in hand. This call for all their capital money to be just put in the (Consolidated) Fund like that - we should hope that our government doesnt get into the hands of people who really think that way. The 70s and 80s remind us to be guarded against those kinds of people getting back into government, he declared. 25. Oppositions motions question legality of legislation-Legal Affairs Minister, May 9, 2012 Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall who joined Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh at a press conference at the
37

National Communications Network studio today, said that the several motions filed for review in parliament by the opposition question the legality of legislation. The Procedure first of all adopted by Honourable Member Carl Greenidge in whose name most of these actions stand is one that is wrong and misconceivedthe procedure adopted by way of motion which is used is not necessary, not contemplated by the rules of parliamentthese motions, some of them seek to challenge the legality of legislationthe laws of the country provide clearly the procedure by which you can challenge the legality of the constitutionality of legislation and it is by filing action in the High Court to set those legislation aside or the sections of those legislation that you are contending are illegal and unconstitutional, Minister Nandlall said. He added that the judiciary is the arm/branch of government in which resides the responsibility and the legislation to deal with such matters as the Courts have been imputed with the power of judicial review of legislation, as such, parliament cannot review its own legislation. It is not contemplated by the constitution and it is blatantly wronga review of former presidents pensions and benefits act, coming by way of motion to the parliament is simply not the procedure provided for in our constitutional construct for these things to be doneanother aspect of these motions is that they seek to illicit informationwe have standard parliament procedure by which information is solicited from the government or from ministers and how they are providedthe standing orders provide for that, the Attorney-General said. The oppositions nine motions, which are slated for review at the May 10 sitting of the National Assembly include; The Courts of Guyana, the Service Commissions (Police, Public Service, Judicial Service and Teaching Service) and the Office of the Auditor General, all of which are to be made into autonomous bodies, Former Presidents Pensions and Benefits Act Part II Section 4 ( Rate of President and Calculation of Pension 7/8 ceiling of pension) to be re-examined by a specially convened parliamentary committee; and agencies charged with extra-budgetary funds- to account for the funds apart from any other resources in accordance with Section 39(4). A careful examination of the motions brought by the opposition unearthed technical flaws, Minister Nandlall said. The motion relating to the review of former presidents pensions and benefits for exampleMr. Greenidge ought to know that a colleague MP from his political party, Mr. Desmond Trotman has filed a constitutional action through his Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Christopher Ram, questioning the constitutionality of this legislation, Minister Nandlall said. Trotman has embarked on the appropriate procedure to question the legislature, which is already employed as the case is pending before the High Court.

38

He added that the standing orders clearly state that one is prohibited from making reference in any debate to a matter that is sub judice, and the motion brought by Greenidge is not simply making reference but rather inviting a full blown debate on a matter that is directly before the courts, therefore the motion is in clear and palpable violation of the requisite standing orders. The award of a pension along with other benefits such as duty free concessions of vehicles, international travel amongst others, to be enjoyed as part of a retirement package by former President Bharrat Jagdeo has been the subject for hot debate in the opposition, as they believed that the former president should not be awarded such a package. However government has argued that the legislation stipulates that former presidents and parliamentarians received a monthly pension of 7/8 of their ceiling, whilst on active duty. 26. Govt forced to engage in parliamentary battles which will not aid countrys development, May 9, 2012 Prime Minister Samuel Hinds at a press conference held in the studios of the National Communications Network, Homestretch Avenue, described the motions tabled by the opposition as premature, hurried, not given the amount of thought that they should be given and abominable, and do not in any way address the continued growth and development of the country, nor the improvement of the economy. Mr. Hinds said that it is a noted fact that during the period 1985-1992 sufficient funds were not available for the proper keeping of records which resulted in them being illkept. On the issue of making the four service commissions autonomous, he stated that government is not quite clear on what the opposition is exactly seeking to have, nevertheless talks have been ongoing with the opposition towards making this a reality. The Prime Minister believes that the motion to review the former Presidents pensions and benefits is nothing short of spitefulness as the opposition seeks to take immediate repeal, which means that former President Bharrat Jagdeo will be living without a pension and benefits until the new Act is in place. We hold to our position that it is not timely do take some of these steps, as things develop there is good time and issues of sequencing in which particular positions are takenthe big problem I have is that these motions takes up parliaments time as we have to make all sorts of detailed studies to deal with these matters now and it certainly reduces the time we have for taking steps which would work towards in keeping the growth and development of our country goingwe have to become engaged in these other battles which will hardly contribute to the growth and development and the improvement of our economy and wellbeing, Prime Minister Hinds said. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall in endorsing sentiments by the Prime Minister said that the motions demonstrate clearly that there is a lack of
39

understanding and appreciation of many things which include parliamentary procedures, existing process and mechanisms in relation to many of issues raised in the motions. Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that the vehicle utilised by Opposition Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge is incorrect. If one examines the motions proposed by Mr. Greenidge you will see that they fall into two categories, some seek information, and others seek to direct that certain actions be taken and in some instances seek to direct that certain action be taken when those actions are already the subject of other specific legislative provisiona parliamentary motion is not the suited vehicle to seek to achieve either of these two thingsthere is well established in parliament the mechanism of posing questions to Ministers, which has worked extremely wellthe Ninth parliament saw every question posed to Ministers being answered, Minister Singh said. The May 10, sitting of the National Assembly will see the following motions, tabled by the opposition coming up for review: submission of Hansard for the period January, 1985 to December 1992; amendment of the Schedule to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 2003 so as to remove the Supreme Court from the Schedule of Budget Agencies and restore it as an autonomous body drawing directly from the Consolidated Fund; the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Police Service Commission and the Teaching Service Commission being treated as autonomous bodies drawing directly from the consolidated fund by removing them from the schedule; the Audit Office ( Auditor General) being removed from the Schedule of Budget Agencies and restored as an autonomous agency drawing directly from the Consolidated Fund; the convening of a parliamentary committee to examine the pensions (president, Parliamentary and Special Offices) Act, Part 11 Section 4( Rate of President and Calculation of Pension 7/8 ceiling of pension, that the revised superannuation package be sent by the special parliamentary committee for consideration and approval by the National Assembly; the Minister of Finance lay before the House a report on all extra-budgetary agencies including the Lotto Funds and GGMC-ensuring that all agencies authorized to have extra-budgetary funds under the Act and with outstanding reports as at February 14, 2012 be immediately paid into the Consolidated Fund and a review of the National Assets. 27. Opposition reneges on agreements reached in multi-party talks, May 11, 2012 The Parliamentary Opposition teamed up last evening to pass a Motion, which sought to amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) of 2003 to remove the Supreme Court from the schedule of budget agencies so that it draws it finances directly from the consolidated fund. However, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh said the motion is fundamentally flawed as its mover, APNU member, Carl Greenidge makes an issue of the fact that the Supreme Court of Judicature is listed in the FMAA and asserted that such an inclusion is
40

somehow inconsistent or incompatible with Article 222A of the Constitution. The Minister maintains that the Motion conveniently, completely ignores that Article 222A also explicitly states that the budget of third schedule entities including the judiciary, shall be improved by the National Assembly after the review and approval of the entities budget as part of the process of the determination of the national budget. The omission of that fundamental and germane part of Article 222A will result in a perverse resolution passed by this National Assembly; a resolution that will do an offence to and collide with our constitution. This House cannot move a Motion that will make the budget of the Supreme Court, a direct charge of the Consolidated Fund and ignores the second part of the Article which gives the legislature an explicitly defined role in the determination of the budgets of all third schedule entities, the Finance Minister explained. During the multi-party talks, the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the financial operations of certain constitutional entities were listed and submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, David Granger to Government for consideration within the context of the discussions that were being held as the budget estimates for 2012. Minister Singh disclosed these matters were discussed at great lengths in light of the fact that this issue went to the core of the constitution and required much analysis. Several nuances that were identified on the types of expenditure could properly be a direct charge on the consolidated fund and what could not; discussions to which Greenidge himself contributed meaningfully. It was then agreed that these matters will be the subject of further studies and ultimately considered by the Standing Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reform; however, the Opposition persisted with the Motion. Is this a reneging of the undertaking of the understandings reached when we metabandoning the need for the study that was recognised to be necessary and for the consideration by the appropriately appointed body, the constitutional reform committee, Mr. Greenidge today persisted with a Motion that pre-empts any such study and arrive at a conclusion on what needs to be done on this matter, Minister Singh lamented. Meanwhile, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who also tabled amendments to this Motion, said that the PPP/C administration is committed to ensuring that the judiciary remains pure, independent and uncontaminated by any form of extraneous influences; noting that Guyana has come a far way from the era when the flag of a certain political Party was flown on the judiciarys building. This Motion makes some serious allegations and that is why it is necessary that it be treated seriously. The judiciary is recognised as a central pillar of democracy, it is recognised as that forum where our people can go to enforce their constitutional rights, he said.

41

He noted that the fact that the judiciary is treated as a budget agency does not in any mean that it is a compromised organisation and to impute such a sentiment by way of this Motion is a bizarre proposition and an indictment not only on the integrity on the judiciary as a whole but on the character of the judges who are in charge of the administration of justice. There is no power vested in this Parliament to conduct of its own legislation that is a power which the constitution has resided in the judiciary. If amendments have to be effected to an extant legislation, then you needed to bring the amendment in the form of an amendment not in the form of a Motion. This whole exercise is superfluous, unnecessary, misplaced, misconceived and wrong and is an abuse of parliamentary process, the Attorney General affirmed. He explained that the reason why the executive has to continue to have a connection with the judiciary is because there has to be someone in the Parliament who will answer for the judiciary particularly when the House goes into Committee of Supply. Moreover, the system, particularly as it relates to the financial structure of the judiciary that obtains at present is in complete compliance with the constitution; there is no mechanism in place to allow for any other system to be put in place. All of the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean have an identical system to Guyana. As a result of the one-seat majority, the Motion was then passed without the amendments proposed by Minister Nandlall. 28. Oppositions Motions in Parliament reek of unpatriotic sentiments, May 16, 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon said that the way in which three Opposition Motions which were approved during the May 10 sitting of the National Assembly, reveal two unwritten but pervasive Opposition sentiments. These he said are, We the Opposition are in control now and we the Opposition will teach this PPP/C administration a lesson. These are the contentions of the Cabinet and apart from the irrationality of these sentiments, Guyanese must be wondering about how far those sentiments will go and what would be the eventual impact on development in Guyana and the body politic, the HPS stated. Now that the Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) have rejected Governments positions, they will have to identify the way forward in which their intentions behind the Motions would be achieved particularly in the face of Governments contentions about those Motions. The Cabinet Secretary said that reservations of the Speaker about the way forward and the implementation of those Motions are indeed reflective of how unconcerned the Opposition is about the consequences.
42

How could they explain their assault on the constitution by rejecting its stipulated provision for the Finance Minister to authorise withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund for four months or until an Appropriation Act is passed for a fiscal year? the Opposition cuts were designed and resulted in making a law to violate the constitution, they cannot ignore the consequences of their action, he affirmed. On May 10, a Motion mandated the Parliament Office to find and submit full records of the National Assembly for the period January 1985 to December 1992 and another seeking to remove the Supreme Court from the schedule of budget agencies so that it draws it finances directly from the Consolidated Fund, were passed without the amendments proposed by Government. Both Motions were moved by APNUs member, Carl Greenidge. 29. Govt moving to court to challenge OP budget cuts- HPS - cuts have infringed on Presidents constitutional entitlements, May 23, 2012 Government will be moving to the courts to have the 2012 National Budget cuts reviewed and reversed as these have essentially stripped President Donald Ramotar of the services to which he is constitutionally entitled. This announcement was made by Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon today at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President. He explained that the cuts have placed a strangle-hold on the provision of services for the President, who constitutionally is recognised as the supreme executive authority of the land. The cuts are both on employment and other expenditure for advisory services, Defence Board, Protocol, Press and Publicity and the Climate Change Unit. Moreover, the jobs of over 122 staff are now on the line; while worthwhile projects, social events, cultural entertainment are all in jeopardy. These will severely compromise the ability of the President to discharge his constitutional obligations. The cessation and withdrawal of funding for minor works, events and undertakings that have started since the beginning of the Presidents term in office since December 5 are now in limbo, the HPS lamented. He added that the situation is indefensible as there could be no contemplation by reasonable people that the Constitution at its highest and, common sense at its lowest could actually contemplate the Opposition putting in place such a dire situation for the President. With regards to the Oppositions talk about returning to the Parliament for supplementary, Dr. Luncheon said that this will be put to the test on one of the next sittings of the National Assembly on May 30 and 31, when the unapproved $27M expenditure in Financial Paper Seven of 2011 will be put up for approval. There is considerable apprehension about whether a supplementary provision could survive this rabid sentiment that is out there, he said.
43

Turning the attention to the Governments outreach meetings, the HPS said that the cuts have been uniformly condemned in communities throughout the country, where their consequences have been examined and deplored. Over $18Billion was cut from the budget for the Low Carbon Development Strategy under which several projects fall. These include the One Laptop Per Family Programme, the Information Communication Technology programme, the Amaila Falls Hydro power project and several others in Amerindian communities. Several agencies have been affected by the budget cuts as well; the Government Information Agency, National Communications Network, Ethnic Relations Commission, State Planning Secretariat and the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit. 30. Govt seeks Conservatory Order from High Court, June 6, 2012 Government has moved to the High Court to have the cuts at amount to close to $21billion which were made to the 2012 National Budget by the Parliamentary Opposition, judicially reviewed. The Administration is seeking to have the reduction of the estimates and revenues by the Committee of Supply particularly as it relates to the Office of the President, Guyana Power and Lights Inc., Government Information Agency, National Communications Network, Guyana Elections Commission, Information Communications Technology and other affected agencies, declared an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect. The writ which was prepared by the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall is also seeking to empower Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh to make withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund in accordance with Article 220 of the Constitution. This article clearly states that Parliament can authorise the Minister of Finance to take advances from the Contingencies Fund if there is an urgent need for expenditure for which no other provision exists. When such an advance is taken, a supplementary estimate shall, as soon as possible, be placed before the National Assembly, An ex parte application was submitted by way of an affidavit for Interim Orders as the Administration seeks to obtain a Conservatory Order from the High Court. The affidavit in support was set out by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon who is responsible for the management and general administration of the Office of the President and assists in the execution of executive decisions and policies. The affidavit pointed to Article 218 of the Constitution of Guyana which states that, in short, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Executive to prepare and lay before the
44

National Assembly the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for each financial year, for its approval or disapproval. Dr. Luncheon noted however, that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance, and certainly, the National Assembly has no power whatsoever, in proposing a new or different sum, or any sum at all. It is on these grounds that the administration is charging that the two motions moved by Mr Ramjattan and Mr Greenidge, which sought to reduce the National Budget, and proposed different sums instead, amounted to an arrogation of powers in addition to a usurpation of a function which exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby, abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers. The Cabinet Secretary in the affidavit added that in respect of the affected agencies, the National Assembly, and not the Executive, presented the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for the year 2012, a situation not provided for, nor contemplated by, the Constitution in any form or fashion. The affidavit further explained that under the Constitution of Guyana the National Assembly has only the power to approve or disapprove of the National Budget, in its entirety. As such, all reductions to the Budget were ultra vires the Constitution and the jurisdiction and authority of the National Assembly. The financial strangulation of the Executive, the affidavit noted, will severely and irreversibly prevent the discharging of functions in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution, and/or legislation, resulting not only in constitutional chaos, but the Executives inability to govern and administer the affairs of the nation in accordance with the provisions of and the manner contemplated by the Constitution. Dr. Luncheon also stated quite clearly in his affidavit that the financial resources of the State are more than adequate to meet the original Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for 2012 as laid in the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance. He has called on the High Court to ensure the balance of convenience, justice and national interest weighs heavily in favour of the grant of the Orders sought, whilst giving the assurance that there is no harm, damage or injustice which will accrue if the Order sought herein is granted, and on the other hand, if they are refused, constitutional chaos, which jeopardises the nations interest, is a likely consequence.

31. Approval of financial Paper Nine is an acid test of supplementary facility, June 7, 2012
45

Members of Parliament (MPs) in the National Assembly have finally reached an agreement to convene the next sittings of the House on June 13 and 14 after two postponements. June 13, a Wednesday, is conventionally dedicated for the business of the nongovernment parties to be dealt with and as such, a number of Motions, most of which were tabled quite some time ago by Opposition MPs would be up for consideration. On the following sitting however, Governments business would be addressed; including the much anticipated re-submitted Financial Paper Seven, now labelled financial Paper Nine of 2011. This supplementary paper was originally a part of the financial paper, in which approval of expenditure for certain items were not granted. It is being brought to the House for the second time on the urgings of Speaker, Raphael Trotman. Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that the approval of this paper would be an acid test of the facility of supplementary provision, which has been bandied around as some panacea for the ill-impacts of the budget cuts; to restore some semblance of constitutionality and common sense to authorise expenditure of the Government for 2012. Government will be moving a Motion on the Integrity Commission, which would entail clauses that would call for the House to agree to have the submission of all of the reports of assets of serving MPs brought to the attention of the House. The intention of course was indeed coercive to establish another mechanism to have MPs compliant with the laws and particularly with probity in public life, the HPS said. Further, a second Motion will be laid in the House by the governing party that would again address the probity of public life of MPs by calling for the disclosure of evidence of their submission of tax compliance. 32. Govt maintains National Assembly cannot cut Budget, only reject or approve, June 7, 2012 The High Court case brought by the Government against the Opposition regarding the cuts to the 2012 National Budget has been adjourned to July 3, 2012. This gives the Opposition three weeks in which to prepare submissions on why the Interim Order applied for should not be granted to the Government. The application was made in the Chambers of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang this morning by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, who said that the Order would permit the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to withdraw from the Contingencies Fund, the sums of money originally budgeted for.
46

Minister Nandlall pointed out that while the facts of the Budget are not in dispute, its only the question of my interpretation of the Constitution. The contention which I have advanced is whether they are accurate or inaccurate. That is the sole issue to be determined. The Attorney General, along with the Solicitor General and his Deputy represent the State. More lawyers are soon to be added to the team. The argument presented in Chambers was based on the structure of the Guyana Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Minister Nandlall put forward that each must have functional autonomy in the discharge of their respective functions and the wherewithal to do so. This would include the necessary finances to discharge those functions. The Minister stated that the actions of the National Assembly have taken away that ability from the Executive, several other constitutional creations, and other important executive entities, bodies that were created by executive decisions. The argument also included the contention that the National Assembly rejected the Finance Ministers estimates, and presented and passed their own estimates. The AG strongly contends that the presentation of estimates to the Assembly is a function that resides exclusively with the Executive, which the Assembly has the power to scrutinise, approve or disapprove, but not the power to reduce. Lawyers representing the Opposition include, Rex McKay, Robert Corbin, Joseph Harmon, Basil Williams, James Bond, Llewellyn John and Deborah Backer. Mr. Ashton Chase is representing the Minister of Finance. 33. Opposition budget cuts aimed at collapsing Govt - Presidential Advisor, June 8, 2012 Presidential Advisor on Community Development, Odinga Lumumba during a programme aired on the National Communications Network (NCN) remarked that the over $20B billion cuts to the 2012 National Budget by the Opposition parties in April is a plot to weaken the Peoples Progressive Party Civic Administration. He noted that for development to take place in any country there must be revenue and as such, the move has resulted in the crippling of the administrations planned policies and programmes which were promised to Guyanese. This move by APNU/AFC is mere wickedness. They have determined with their one seat majority, that they will make the countrys decisions, in whatever interest they feel is important, he said. Citing the need for harmony and good sense to prevail, Lumumba stated that the Government Officials have met with members of the Opposition on a continuous basis with the aim of taking the country forward and to date, there has not been a favourable response. While supporting the Governments move to the courts to challenge the budget cuts as unconstitutional, he said that, In order for the President to function he
47

must have a budgetif you take that away from him you are making him nonfunctional. Yesterday, the High Court gave the Opposition up to July 3 to prepare its submissions on why the Interim Order applied for by Government should not be granted. The Order would permit the Finance Minister to withdraw from the Contingencies Fund, the sums originally budgeted for. The Minister presented in late March a $192.5B budget. He said that thus far, the Government has positively reacted to many of the Oppositions requests. One example is the increase in the Old Age Pension from $7900 to $10,000 per month. The Presidential Advisor reminded that politics should at no time reach the point where the poor and working class are the ones who suffer, as hundreds are on the breadline. He noted that while the programmes under other Ministries and Agencies are moving apace, those that fall under the offices whose budget were cut are currently at a standstill. If the Budget cannot be restored at some point in time, the Government will not be able to function and the people of Guyana will have to make a decision on the way forwardthis budget cut is a political one as the Opposition is trying to make the PPP look bad, he said. During the presentation of the 2012 estimates and expenditure in the National Assembly, several agencies budget were reduced to $1 including; the One Laptop Per Family programme (OLPF), State Planning Secretariat, National Communications Network (NCN), Government Information Agency (GINA), State Planning Secretariat and the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC). The Low Carbon Development Strategy has also been slashed which has affected several projects under its purview such as the Amaila Falls Hydro power, Amerindian Development Fund, and the fibre optic cable that was expected to provide easy and fast access to government services. 34. Constitutional crisis referred to by Speaker emanated in Parliament, June 9, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall said that the Oppositions move to use its majority power by way of a vote, to deny constitutional agencies financial resources to function is tantamount to constitutional sabotage. Speaking on a National Communications Network Programme, Minister Nandlall said, One would expect that constitutional comity would have dictated and that the National Assembly would have discharged its responsibility in such a manner to ensure that other constitutional agencies have the resources which are necessary to run their affairs. Misuse of power The framers of the constitution would never have contemplated that the power which is reposed in the National Assembly would be used in a manner like this, he stated. He said that this is clearly a contravention of the constitutional doctrine and structure; noting that neither the Parliament nor the judiciarys budget was cut, only the executive.
48

On June 4, the Attorney General moved to the High Court for a judicial review of the Oppositions close to $21Billion cut to the 2012 national budget. Even though he could not have divulged details about the matter, he explained that the proceeding currently pending in the court is a constitutional action, which challenges the legality of the move by the National Assembly to reduce funds allocated by the Finance Minister for the fiscal year 2012. The National Assembly took upon itself, the power and responsibility of proposing its own sums, which was passed by the one-seat majority Opposition. Constitution When one looks at the constitution of our country and one examines its structurethe National Assembly fell into serious constitutional error and abrogated several constitutional doctrines in doing what it did, he said. Guyana is declared to be a democratic state; its constitution is built on the separation of powers. This doctrine divides constitutional responsibilities into three compartments; the executive, judiciary, and the parliament (legislative). Under this constitutional structure, each compartment is assigned specific and clearly defined functions. Further, in the discharge of their delineated functions, each enjoys functional autonomy. However, an exceptional amount of independence is imbued to the judiciary since it is the branch of government which is assigned the exclusive responsibility of reviewing the actions of others to ensure that they act reasonably and in conformity with the laws of the country but, most importantly, that they act in the manner contemplated for and provided by the constitution which created them. Although the court has the overriding responsibility of being that forum to which you can complain about conduct and affairs in the Parliamentit can only go to a certain extent. The jurisdiction of the courts is to review the conduct of the Parliament to see that it functions in the way that the constitution intended it to functionand that is the jurisdiction which this action has invoked, the AG explained. The constitution also created a series of offices including the Cabinet, Defence Board and the Guyana Elections Commission. These agencies are expected to be imbued and endowed with the necessary resources to discharge the functions which the constitution has ascribed to them. The responsibility over the countrys finance has been given by the constitution to the executive. As such, when the Finance Minister presents the national estimates of Guyana to the Parliament, he does so as a designate of the President (the head of the executive). The National Assembly on the other hand, has a role to approve the estimates. The National Assembly went way overboard when they did what they did in the last budget. They counter-proposed and their counter-proposal was passed, so several constitutional wrongs in my view, was committed. They have usurped the functions of
49

the executiveonly the Presidents designate can counter-propose. So in essence, the National Assembly as opposed to the executive passed the budget for those agencies, Minister Nandlall said. Constitutional crisis Responding to Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman who in a press release stated that the executives move to challenge the cuts could lead to a constitutional crisis, Minister Nandlall said that the crisis was generated in the National Assembly. The executives move to the court is an attempt to find a solution to a constitutional crisis which emanated from the body over which the Speaker presides. All I am doing is going to another constitutional organ that has the power, responsibility, duty, independence and jurisdiction to remedy what is described as a constitutional crisis, he clarified. On June 7, the matter was called in the Chambers of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang but was adjourned to July 3; giving the Opposition three weeks in which to prepare submissions on why the Interim Order applied for should not be granted to the Government. 35. I will not assent to Opposition bills that lack Executives input, June 13, 2012 President Donald Ramotar has sent a warning to the Opposition about the abuse of their one seat majority in the National Assembly, stating categorically that he will not affix his signature to any bill that is brought to his desk without the input of the Executive. His warning came in response to the notion that is being propagated of a Rule by Motion politics in the National Assembly where the coalition party, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has 26 seats and, the Alliance For Change (AFC) seven. The Ruling party has 32 seats. Speaking to Editor-in-Chief of the National Communications Network (NCN) Michael Gordon at a special interview today, President Ramotar revisited the three arms of government which give the Executive exclusive jurisdiction to implement policies and laws. That is not the function of the Opposition. They must respect what is their role I am making it very clear that I will not assent to any bill that they carry unless it is with the full agreement of the Executive and the full involvement of the Executive. The President regards the move by the Opposition a violation of the Separation of Powers and, an attempt to confiscate authority that was not constitutionally given to them. It is on this basis that President Ramotar said the government has taken to litigation in an attempt to seek redress over the cuts to the 2012 National Budget.
50

He noted that the Opposition said they (Government) can return to the National Assembly for Supplementary funding, but the Sittings today and tomorrow will really be the acid test of such facility. The Government took to the High Court against the Opposition regarding the cuts, with the case being based on the structure of the Guyana Constitution and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. At the convening of the case on June 7, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall stated that the actions of the Opposition in the National Assembly have taken away that ability from the Executive, several other constitutional creations, and other important executive entities, bodies that were created by executive decisions. The Attorney General contended that the presentation of estimates to the Assembly is a function that resides exclusively with the Executive, which the Assembly has the power to scrutinise, approve or disapprove, but not the power to reduce. The case has been adjourned to July 3, 2012 giving the Opposition three weeks in which to prepare submissions on why the Interim Order applied for should not be granted to the Government. President Ramotar is however, hoping for expeditiousness and is counting on the advice of his attorneys who are convinced that the Governments case is sound and justifiable. Before we think about other steps, lets wait on this judicial step to be taken to restore what I believe was a violation of the Constitution by the Opposition in the National Assembly, President Ramotar said. The Opposition parties voted against $21B from the 2012 National Budget, jeopardising the functions and very existence of some crucial government sectors and programmes. Among them are the Low Carbon Development Strategy which lost $18B and the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), the Government Information Agency (GINA) the Customs Anti Narcotics Unit (CANU) and State Planning Secretariat, all of which were left with one Guyana dollar. The Private Sector Commission (PSC) has reported noticeable deceleration of some indicators in the economy as a result of the unprecedented cuts which it believes are not overly alarming, but are showing up more and more every day. The PSC was also appalled by cuts to the Amaila Falls Hydropower project which it believes would have promoted competitiveness by encouraging the processing and manufacturing sectors in Guyana. President Ramotar noted in todays interview the impact such a project would have had on the countrys fuel importation bill which at present demands high expenditure.

36. Opposition reveals insincerity about restoring budget cuts, June 14, 2012
51

Opposition parties A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) today revealed that they are completely insincere about restoring the draconian cuts they inflicted on Budget 2012, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh said on the margins of today's Sitting of the National Assembly. Financial Paper No 9 of 2011 was scheduled for consideration by the National Assembly after being returned to the House among those items that the Opposition refused to support last year. Those items were brought back after the Speaker ruled that the House could proceed with reconsidering them. Instead of being guided by the Speaker's ruling that the items could be reconsidered, Opposition spokesman on Finance Carl Greenidge attempted once again to block the National Assembly from considering the items, on the grounds that the Assembly had already ruled on these items on a previous occasion. Greenidge argued that the House could not revive discussion on a matter which had been discussed in the same session. This argument was rejected by the Speaker, who stated that the financial paper was appropriately put before the House. Following the Speaker's rejection of Greenidge's argument, the APNU and the AFC then combined to vote against the financial paper without asking a single question on the items concerned. In an invited comment on the margins of the Assembly, Minister Singh stated that the Opposition's attempt to object to the reconsideration of these items, their defiance to the Speaker's ruling, and their eventual disapproval of the items concerned without asking any question is ample proof that the Opposition is totally insincere about reconsidering any of the items cut from Budget 2012. Shortly after the Opposition imposed the cuts to the 2012 budget, in response to widespread public rejection of the budget cuts, Opposition Leader David Granger and AFC's Khemraj Ramjattan had said publicly that the cuts could be restored if the Government brought a supplementary financial paper. Minister Singh pointed out that Greenidge's latest move to block reconsideration of items previously considered, directly contradicts this earlier position taken by the Opposition, and discloses that the Opposition has absolutely no intention of reconsidering any item previously cut. What is even more astonishing, Minister Singh pointed out, is the fact that the Opposition refused to ask even a single question on the items resubmitted. This fact alone discloses that the Opposition has no interest in the merits of the items and issues, but instead will use their tyrannical majority of one even in voting against items that are in the national interest. 37. Two important Govt Bills to be read today in parliament, June 27, 2012
52

Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon today, at a post-Cabinet briefing informed media operatives that at todays Sitting of the National Assembly, two important government bills- the Official Gazette and the Common Law bills, will be read in parliament. The Official Gazette Bill seeks to introduce an e-official gazette as a legal official gazettethe gazette is the official repository of government notices and suchan electronic version is now the subject of this billthe Common Law Bill will allow the union of a single individual man/woman who within five years of the relationship were anyone of the parties to die, the remaining member would be entitled to inherit benefits similar to those that would have occurred in a formal unionwithin five years of the establishment of such a union of a single person, Dr. Luncheon explained. Dr. Luncheon added that a number of bills by the administration, for the second reading would also be dealt with at todays sitting. The Cabinet Secretary said that the governing party had already written the Speaker on a motion the Opposition intends to table at todays sitting. The governing party has had cause to write the Speaker in the context of his approval of a motion intended for the National Assemblys approvala motion to lay a bill entitled the office of the clerk of the national assembly- private members bill meaning it is introduced by the Opposition and the governing party has advised the Speaker that it would be opposed by the governing party because of its assault on constitutional provisions, particularly in disregarding the powers of the president against the appointments of the clerk of the national assembly and other constitutional provisions, Dr. Luncheon said. He further explained that the Speaker has been served a notice of the administration and the governing party, to oppose the tabling and hearing of this bill, however with the recent experience of the National Assembly with regards its constitutionality, were the motion to be heard, the one-seat majority will ensure that the motion is carried. Im pretty certain that the President less than one month ago publicly advised the opposition in Parliament about the likely faith of enactments that for one, suffered the same type of admonition like this bill has already receivedan indication that government clearly would not support its enactment, Dr. Luncheon said. The Order Paper for todays Sitting of the National Assembly has reflected the remaining motions from the Opposition to be considered such as the National Assets; to which consideration has already begun, the extra- budgetary funds; the former Presidents benefits; Independence of Parliament and the right to assembly. Parliament noticed the repetitive resort of the parliamentary opposition to the use of their one-seat majority in parliament to attempt to and or to make or break the lawto undermine procedures and practices of parliamentary tradition and in essence to make to declare parliamentary precedence, Dr. Luncheon said.
53

He added that Cabinet has also noted the media submission by the opposition about the development of gridlock of parliament and could only have surmised that such sentiments reflect an intended unwillingness of the parliamentary opposition to take heed of President Ramotars admonitions regarding his role in giving accent to legislation from the House and the way in which it would be treated, were the government of Guyana considerations were not taken into consideration. 38. Motions tabled and passed by Opposition do not affect Govt policies Attorney General, June 28, 2012 The recent spate of Motions tabled and passed by the Opposition parties in the National Assembly will not affect Government policies, Attorney General, Minister of Legal Affairs and Legal Advisor to the State of Guyana Anil Nandlall said yesterday as put the efficacy of a Parliamentary Motion into perspective. He was at the time making his presentation in rejecting an Opposition Motion to place all funds for extra budgetary agencies into the Consolidated Fund. He pointed to the erroneous view that the passage of an Opposition motion constitutes some coercive impact upon Government policy. He rejected that notion outright and quoted from a reference book of the National Assembly, Practical Guide for Private Members Business, Ninth Edition a motion expressing a resolution is only the House stating an opinion. The Government will not be bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action, as a result thereof. Since the convening of the 10th Parliament in February 2012, several Motions tabled by the Opposition Parliamentary parties have been debated and approved through their one-seat majority over the Government side of the House. 39. Opposition extra-budgetary agencies motion in violation of FMA Act Attorney General, June 28, 2012 A stormy and fierce debate during yesterdays Sitting of the National Assembly saw Government Members of Parliament (MPs) describing an Opposition motion as contradictory, badly grounded operational nightmare proposed by a tyranny of one, and being in violation of the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMA) 2003. The National Assembly approved a Motion tabled by APNU MP Carl Greenidge that would authorise that body to dictate the manner in which extra-budgetary agencies access funds from the Consolidated or any other public fund. The Parliamentary Opposition also demanded that apart from operational expenses, all other funds accruing to those agencies should be paid over into the Consolidated Fund. PPP/C MP Bishop Juan Edghill pointed to the fact that the Motion sought to amend the Act which it cannot do, but instead it was violating it. He added that transferring funds
54

to the Consolidated Fund would create an operational nightmare whilst at the same time being confusing. He explained that the Motion has established that there are extra-budgetary funds while suggesting that all public monies must go into the Consolidated Fund regardless of their operational needs. Government MP Odinga Lumumba stated quite clearly that the law regarding the Consolidated Fund was a creature of the Peoples National Congress, whose Finance Minister at that time was the Hon. Carl Greenidge, the person who tabled the motion seeking change. Leader of the AFC bench Khemraj Ramjattan insisted that the Parliament had the right to determine how extra-budgetary agencies received and used their finances and supported the Motion. Describing the Motion as badly grounded, PPP MP Manzoor Nadir argued that it was bad politically, it was not testimony of what the people of Guyana voted forit is so badly drawn, so wrongly rooted, I find it extremely difficult to give my support to it. Attorney General Anil Nandlall from the PPP bench stated the clear purpose of the FMA Act was to keep the Consolidated Funds and extra-budgetary funds separate and apart. He described the Motion as ill-conceived, legally wrong, factually incorrect and wrongly conceptualized, while at the same time being in violation of the FMA Act. The approval of the Motion would require the Minister of Finance to report on all extra budgetary agencies, including the Lotto Funds and Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, and provide to the National Assembly, all the outstanding reports and quarterly audited accounts. It also requires that subject Ministers with extra-budgetary agencies under their portfolios, are now required to pay into the consolidated fund all balances held in their accounts and submit statements of such payments to the National Assembly immediately. 40. Opposition seeks to violate FMA Act, June 30, 2012 Wednesdays sitting of the National Assembly saw Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) moving to violate the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMA) 2003. The presentations by Government MPs against a Motion tabled by APNU MP Carl Greenidge strongly defended that attempt. The motion which was approved authorises the National Assembly to dictate the manner in which extra-budgetary agencies access funds from the Consolidated or any other public fund. The Motion also requires that apart from operational expenses, all other funds accruing to those agencies should be paid over into the Consolidated Fund.

55

PPP/C MP Bishop Juan Edghill pointed to the fact that the Motion sought to amend the Act which it cannot do, but instead it was violating it, a point which was supported by the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman. He added that the Motion suggests that all public money is equated to or equal to what is in the Consolidated Fund. He noted that the Consolidated Fund is just a sub-set of public money and not the sum total of Public Money. MP Edghill stated that the FMA Act states that, all public monies shall be classified as either (a) received monies (b) monies in the Consolidated Fund including any monies in the Contingencies in the Fund (c) monies in an extra-budgetary fund (d) drawn monies (e) monies in a deposit fund. He explained that the Act envisages that there will be public money that is not in the Consolidated Fund, while the motion seeks to create a facility which would cause the Consolidated Fund to become the sum total of all public monies. The Act does not allow this Edghill explained, adding that there is nothing illegal about having public money outside of the Consolidated Fund. Attorney General Anil Nandlall from the PPP bench stated the clear purpose of the FMA Act and the Constitution was to keep the Consolidated Funds and extra-budgetary funds separate and apart. He stated that the FMA stated that all public monies received by the Government shall be credited fully and promptly to the Consolidated Fund, except monies credited to an extra-budgetary fund as stipulated in the enabling legislation establishing the fund like the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, like the Lottery Act, like the Forestry Commission Act (b) monies credited to a deposit fund and (c) as stipulated in the Constitution. In view of the Act, the AG said that to deposit in a wholesale manner into the Consolidated Fund is wrong. It is illegal and unconstitutional. He urged the Parliamentary Opposition to make constructive use of their one-seat majority without violating the laws of the country. The one seat majority is not used rationally, but is used emotively and emotionally, and that is the problem, he declared. The approval of the Motion requires the Minister of Finance to report on all extra budgetary agencies, including the Lotto Funds and GGMC, and provide to the National Assembly, all the outstanding reports and quarterly audited accounts. It also requires that subject Ministers with extra-budgetary agencies under their portfolios, are now required to pay into the consolidated fund all balances held in their accounts and submit statements of such payments to the National Assembly immediately. 41. Govt has strong case, July 3, 2012 Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Seenath Jairam, a Guyanese by birth, who was recruited by the Government of Guyana for his years of experience in constitutional matters, as a High Court Judge and his current position as President of the Law Association of
56

Trinidad and Tobago has stated that the High Court case filed by the Government has every likelihood of success. The Government of Guyana will tomorrow respond to the Oppositions arguments presented today, on why the High Court should not grant an Order for the Finance Minister to access $20.9B from the National Treasury. The sum was cut from the 2012 National Budget by the Opposition which holds a one seat majority in the House. SC Jairam said that despite the arguments, the Government has a strong case, since the Oppositions argument that there is no separation of powers under the Constitution is a constitutional heresy. Guyana like all Commonwealth countries always enjoys the separation of powers, that is to say, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislative. In my view, if the opposition has a right to reduce a budget, they will be frustrating the will of the Executive. They dont have a right to reduce under the constitution, they may withhold approval, not reduce, Mr. Jairam explained. While he stated that withholding approval of the Budget is a different constitutional argument, SC Jairam said that under Article 65, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and the good governance of Guyana. You cannot reduce the budget by $1, causing people who are employed by the state agencies to be dismissed through no fault of their own. That is chaos He said, If monies are not approved how are they to be paid? Common sense tells us that unless monies are voted for the particular areas, there will have to be dislocation in employment. Meanwhile, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall stated that the Opposition has been unable to demonstrate in their arguments that their actions in the National Assembly were constitutional. He said that they were unable to point to the relevant constitutional provisions to show that they have the power to cut the budget estimates and expenditures for 2012 as presented by the Minister of Finance. They have essentially argued that the power of approval of the estimates includes a power to reduce it, the AG said. By no stretch of the law or language, can a power to approve include a power to reduce the estimates. He stated that since the Opposition has put forward all the arguments which were anticipated, there will be no difficulty in responding. In April, after the presentation of the National Budget to the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance, and the detailed examination of the estimates by the Opposition benches, it was ruled that the budget be slashed by $20.9B. As a result there were no financial allocations made for several Government agencies, and the jobs of state employees were put on the line. The agencies affected include the Government Information Agency; National Communications Network; Ethnic Relations Commission which has already paid the price since its employees have been sent home; State Planning Secretariat; Guyana Elections Commission; Office of the President - the major arm of the Executive; ICT
57

development One Laptop Per Family; Customs Anti Narcotics Unit and the Guyana Power and Light Company which had its subsidy slashed by $1Billion, even as the Opposition parties oppose a small electricity tariff increase for Linden. The Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) was also slashed and the Amerindian Community in Guyana is currently paying the price. The lack of funding for these agencies is already being felt, since creditors are leery of continuing to service them, and some have already withdrawn credit pending payment of current bills. In some cases employees who have not yet been paid for the month of June are seriously considering their options. Notwithstanding, the Opposition maintains their claim that what they did was not unconstitutional at all. Khemraj Ramjattan of the Alliance for Change has stated that, the Order that is being sought here is unconstitutionalthis entire court matter is misconceived and heavily flawed. What we did by cutting and reducing the budget was in accordance with the standing orders, the constitutional provisions and also the statutory provisions of the FMAA. Meanwhile, SC Jairam with his wealth of experience will continue the response to the Oppositions arguments tomorrow. The SC will draw from the many constitutional law cases done in Trinidad, along with judicial reviews, which have contributed to the wealth of his experience and expertise. The application for the Interim Order was made on June 7, 2012, in the Chambers of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang by Minister Nandlall, who said that the Order would permit the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to withdraw from the Contingency Fund, the sums of money originally budgeted for. Lawyers representing the Opposition include, Rex McKay, Robert Corbin, Joseph Harmon, Basil Williams, James Bond, Llewellyn John and Debra Backer. Mr. Ashton Chase is representing the Minister of Finance. 42. Unprepared Opposition asks for more time to present arguments - deliberate ploy to delay proceedings- AG, July 4, 2012 After being granted almost four weeks to prepare their arguments, the Parliamentary Opposition today were unprepared to defeat what they have publicly termed a misconceived, weak and heavily flawed case brought by the Government. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall today voiced this sentiment after the hearing in the Chambers of the Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, where Government sought to have an Interim Order granted for the Finance Minister to access funds that were cut from the National Budget in April of this year. Vehement objections from the Attorney General (AG) today led to the Court granting only one week more rather than the two weeks requested by the Opposition to prepare arguments. The case has been adjourned to July 10.
58

AG Nandlall stated that asking for more time is a deliberate strategy to prolong and protract the matter. He explained that, on the last occasion they were granted three weeks to prepare their submissions. When they first appeared they had a battery of lawyers. But at Tuesdays hearing, only Llewellyn John represented A Partnership for National Unity when the Alliance for Change made their submissions. This morning Deborah Backer, Joseph Harmon and Basil Williams turned up, unprepared to present arguments as they were ordered to do three weeks ago, and then proceeded to request an adjournment for two weeks, seeking further time to prepare, Nandlall said. The Legal Affairs Minister denounced the action of the Opposition, pointing to the fact that since they have termed the case weak and ill conceived, one would have expected as competent lawyers they would have had no difficulty in demolishing the case in the shortest possible time, he said. While they have been unable to do so, Minister Nandlall pointed out that more importantly, I believe that it is a deliberate ploy to delay these proceedings to force the Government to dismiss hundreds of employees and to shut down vital programmes and offices which would have devastating consequences on ordinary working people, so they can score cheap political points. Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam representing the Government stated on Tuesday when the case resumed that under Article 65, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and the good governance of Guyana. You cannot reduce the budget by $1, causing people who are employed by the state agencies to be dismissed through no fault of their own. That is chaos. He also noted that despite the fact that there have been no dismissals to date, there will have to be. If monies are not approved how are they to be paid? Common sense tells us that unless monies are voted for the particular areas, there will have to be dislocation in employment. It has also been noted that should the lack of finance lead to the dismissal of State employees, it would critically affect the business of the State, and frustrate the governance of the nation. The Opposition continues to insist that the National Assembly has the power to reduce and cut the National Budget. 43. Decision pending in Attorney Generals budget cuts case, July 10, 2012 Chief Justice Ian Chang has pledged to ensure that a decision is delivered speedily on the Attorney Generals application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access monies cut from the 2012 National Budget. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall stated today that all submissions have been made by the Opposition side. Today Mr. Rex McKay presented the submissions for and on behalf of Mr. David Granger. The submissions were largely done in writing and then he oralised some of the
59

important points. Having listened to them, I was able to reply immediately thereafter. I rebutted the arguments advanced and I remain confident that they do not contradict in any real way what I have argued and they do not present an answer to the legal arguments which I have advanced. Minister Nandlall expressed confidence that the Court would make the Order in a manner that is prayed for or with a slight variation. He posited that the arguments advanced do not answer the case which he put forward. The Minister added that he has urged respectfully, the Chief Justice, that this is a matter of grave urgency, and involving the national interest. Therefore, every convenient speed should be taken to ensure that the decision is rendered one way or another, as quickly as is reasonably possible. The Chief Justice has indicated that he will ensure that a decision is delivered speedily. We are waiting for the Chief Justice to indicate to us shortly when the ruling will be made. Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Rex McKay, representing Leader of the Opposition David Granger has stated that, We rehashed all the previous submissions made by Mr. Ramjattan. Our arguments centered on not reading words into the Constitution, and that there is no breach in the principle of separation of powers. The High Court case brought by the Government against the Opposition regarding the cuts to the National Budget began on June 7, 2012. An application was made in the Chambers of Chief Justice Ian Chang by Minister Nandlall, who said that the Order would permit the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to withdraw from the Contingency Funds, the sums of money originally budgeted for. The Court gave the Opposition three weeks in which to prepare submissions on why the Interim Order applied for should not be granted to the Government. The argument presented in Chambers was based on Constitutional structure of the Guyana Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Minister Nandlall put forward that each much have functional autonomy in the discharge of their respective functions and the wherewithal to do so. This would include the necessary finances to discharge those functions. The Minister stated that the actions of the National Assembly have taken away that ability from the Executive, several other constitutional creations, and several other important executive creations, bodies that were created by executive decisions. The argument also included the contention that the National Assembly rejected the Finance Ministers estimates, and presented and passed their own estimates. The AG strongly contended that the presentation of estimates to the Assembly is a function that resides exclusively with the Executive, which the Assembly has the power to scrutinise, approve or disapprove, but not the power to reduce. Meanwhile the Alliance for Change and A Partnership for National Unity have argued that there is no separation of powers under the Constitution. Their claim that what they
60

did was not unconstitutional, and that the Order that is being sought here is unconstitutionalthis entire court matter is misconceived and heavily flawed. Nevertheless, Minister Nandlall stated that the Opposition has been unable to demonstrate in their arguments that their actions in the National Assembly were constitutional. He said that they were unable to point to the relevant constitutional provisions to show that they have the power to cut the budgeted estimates and expenditures for 2012 as presented by the Minister of Finance. In April of this year, after the presentation of the National Budget to the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance, and the detailed examination of the estimates by the Opposition benches, it was ruled that the budget be slashed by $20.9B. As a result there were no financial allocations made for several Government agencies, and the jobs of state employees were put on the line. The agencies affected include the Government Information Agency; National Communication Network; Ethnic Relations Commission which has already paid the price; State Planning Secretariat, Low Carbon Development Strategy for which the Amerindian Community in Guyana is currently paying the price; Guyana Elections Commission; Office of the President the major arm of the Executive; Office of the Prime Minister; ICT development One Laptop Per Family; Customs Anti Narcotic Unit and the Guyana Power and Light Company. The lack of funding for these agencies is already being felt, since creditors are wary of continuing to service them, and some have already withdrawn credit pending payment of current bills. In some cases employees who have not yet been paid for the month of June are seriously considering their options. Lawyers representing the Opposition include, Rex McKay, Robert Corbin, Joseph Harmon, Basil Williams, James Bond, Llewellyn John and Debra Backer. Senior Counsel Ashton Chase is representing the Minister of Finance, while the Government of Guyana is represented by the Attorney General and Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Seenath Jairam. 44. Opposition, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary, July 13, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said Government is not pleased with the proceedings in the National Assembly and while there is full recognition of Governments 32 seats as against 33 of the combined Parliamentary Opposition, he stated that Government cannot agree with the manner in which the majority position is used to abuse the process and, in some instances to violate the laws of Guyana. Opposition Motions On the issue of Parliamentary Motions moved by the Opposition, the Attorney General stated that they are seeking to do a number of irrelevant things, most of which do not require a Motion. Pointing to the fact that some of the Motions sought to demand
61

information, he explained that the way is already established for the Parliamentary process to serve this end. Nandlall said that an Opposition could simply ask a question of a Minister during the sitting of the Assembly, or use the Parliamentary Standing Committees which are now dominated by the Opposition. These Committees have the power to compel or subpoena any documents requiredand such procedures can allow for all the information required, most of which are available to the public. Almost all public entities, Ministries, etc. have documents in relation their respective offices in the public domain, while the Auditor General annually audits their financial accounts, and his report is presented to the National Assembly. Abuse of Parliamentary process The Parliamentary process is being abused, misused and manipulated to score political points the AG declared, adding that it is a sham and a veneer that is created to fool the public that there is an active Opposition in the Parliament and they have the Government under pressure. Reiterating that all information required can be supplied using the existing mechanisms in and out of Parliament, he stated that some of the Motions sought to bring contracts to the National Assembly for review. The National Assembly has no jurisdiction over contracts. A contract is a binding document between the two parties who are signing them. Of course there are different sections of the National Assembly through which questions on that type of document can be requested. But for the National Assembly as a body to sit and review contracts is not a power that the National Assembly has, the AG said. Questioning the purpose of reviewing contracts, he added that the National Assembly has no power to annul, rescind, or do anything about the contract which remains a binding agreement between two parties. With a battery of lawyers on the Opposition side, they either understand that, and they are manipulating, abusing and misusing the Parliamentary process or they dont understand it, and that is quite a distinct possibility, the AG stated. Motion violates Law A Motion put forward by Opposition MP Carl Greenidge of A Partnership for National Unity sought to compel the Parliament, compel the Government to deposit all monies which are held in extra budgetary funds into the Consolidated Fund. The Motion was passed using the joint opposition one seat majority.

62

AG Nandlall stated that the laws of Guyana along with the Constitution, created the Consolidated Fund. He noted that there are different rules of law, accountancy and accounting principles which apply to the Consolidated Fund and Extra Budgetary funds. The extra budgetary fund clearly was established to be separate and apart from the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund was established by the Constitution. Article 216 says very clearly that all public monies must be deposited in the Consolidated Fund, save and except if a law says that it must be deposited elsewhere. For example, extra budgetary funds are for statutory agencies like the GGMC. These things are created by statute and the statutes that create them tell us where you must deposit the monies from these bodies. The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 states that extra budgetary funds means a fund established by an Act for a specific purpose and funded by specific earmarked revenue, that operates apart from the consolidated fund, AG Nandlall stated. He said the National Assembly is violating the law of the land and using the majority to do so. The AG pointed to the fact that the National Assembly is the forum through which laws come as Bills in Parliament and are debated before receiving Presidential concurrence to become law. So the National Assembly is very instrumental in the law making process, and if the National Assembly is in itself and by its own conduct violating the laws of the land, how does the National Assembly expect the ordinary man in the street to obey the law when they themselves are violating the law? he questioned. Speakers responsibility AG Nandlall said he brought these points emphatically to the attention of the Speaker of the National Assembly Mr Raphael Trotman. The Speaker is ultimately presiding over the National Assembly and is ultimately responsible for the way in which the National Assembly conducts itself, he observed. A Parliamentary majority does not authorise actions outside of the Constitution, You are a creature of the Constitution, so you must act within the Constitution. A majority cannot allow you to act outside of the laws of Guyana. The Parliament is not above the Constitution. I believe that the Speaker understands that, he stated. He noted that in future years, the Parliamentary Hansard (records of sittings of the National Assembly) will reflect what he terms the irresponsibility of the current parliament and the position which is being articulated by the Government. You cannot use a majority to arrogate the laws of the land; to allocate to yourself powers which you do not have as a National Assembly; to perform functions which you do not want as a National Assembly, he said. Pointing out that the National Assembly is moving another Motion by APNUs MP Greenidge to set up a committee to review legislation, the AG stated clearly that the power to review legislation is a power which resides in the Court only.
63

He said the National Assembly is proposing to hear and debate a Motion, the purpose of which is to set up a committee within the Assembly, of members to review a valid law which was passed by the National Assembly. Responsibility of the Legislature AG Nandlall declared that while the National Assembly cannot review its own laws, such a Motion has been scheduled to be debated at the next sitting, and will no doubt be passed. President and Executive mandate Referring to a statement made by President Donald Ramotar that he will not agree to any Bill that has no input from the Executive, AG Nandlall stated that this power to withhold assent of a Bill which has been passed through the National Assembly is a Constitutional freedom which the President has. He will then return that Bill to the Speaker with a note on his reasons for not concurring. He explained that a President, who is the head of the Executive as in Guyanas system, can do so, since the Executive is responsible for administering and enforcing the laws of the country. The Parliament which consists of the National Assembly and the President is the body that makes the law; the Judiciary interprets and applies the law while the Executive administers and enforces the law. The AG stated that despite the fact that members of the Executive are standing up in the National Assembly and objecting to what is inconsistent with Government policy or laws, or that Government does not have the capabilities of enforcing such a law, the one seat majority is used to ram that down the throat of the National Assembly. How in that kind of context can a President assent to the Bill? How can an Attorney General advise a President to assent to that type of Bill or a Bill in that kind of situation? he questioned. The AG observed that the issue is not about opposing the Opposition, rather it is about bringing Bills which are consistent with extant Executive policies and bringing Bills which are capable of being enforced by the Executive. If the Executive is incapable of enforcing a particular law, because we dont have the technical expertise, or we dont have the infrastructure necessary, or we dont have the resources which are necessary. How can, in those circumstances, a President assent to it? The threat of refusal of Presidential assent to Bills without executive input is seen by some as the interference of the Executive in the running of Parliament. Nandlall said this is an obvious view of the people who dont understand our Constitutional structure. The President is a constituent part of the Parliament. The Parliament is made up of two parts: the National Assembly on the one part and the Executive President on the other part, he said.

64

It is not Executive interference. The President is Parliament discharging its legislative function. That argument is obviously coming from people who dont understand the law and the constitution, he said. Applying to the Judiciary The Attorney General has twice applied to the High Court on matters coming out of the National Assembly. When the first case started, there were objections that the court had no jurisdiction to enquire into the conduct of Parliament and that the Parliament is immune from jurisdiction by the courts. The first victory was that the court found that there is jurisdiction to review whether there was a Constitutional violation by the National Assembly. There was none in the first case and the AG lost. But I will continue to go to the Court if I believe there is violation of the law, he said. Considering the current parliamentary dispensation and the behaviour of the National Assembly, he said that he is doing is democratic, and legal. If you dont agree with a decision, you go to the court to resolve it. You may not win all, hopefully you may win some and those that you do not win, you will learn from them. Expectations: The new dispensation has not delivered; it has been a disaster is the view of the AG, The Parliament of compromise and consensus has not been working so far, there has not been any effort from the other side. He posited that the majority power enjoyed by the opposition if used constructively and reasonably can be a great one. Unfortunately, he said it is being used as a weapon of vendetta and political instrument to attack the Government, The unfortunate thing is that ultimately persons who are suffering from this vicious use of this one seat majority is the ordinary people of this country which include their own supporters. But that fact seems to have been lost. One opposition party was so bold to say that it is collateral damage. Its a most insensitive statement when one has regard to the devastating consequences that these actions are having and will continue to have on the ordinary people. Cabinet and President The President is following closely what is going on, and it is trying to get on with Executive policies and programmes and plans to improve the lives and livelihoods of the ordinary working people across the class, race and political divide, he said. We have a Manifesto that we have promised the people of this country we are working assiduously to ensure that we keep those promises. He stated that the Administration is undeterred by the parliamentary matrix and they are now more resolute to achieving those goals.
65

45.

2012 Budget cuts unconstitutional - CJs verdict, July 18, 2012

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall today stated that Chief Justice (CJ) (ag) Ian Chang has ruled that the National Assembly has no power under the constitution to reduce the National Estimates when they are presented for approval. The Chief Justice in a preliminary ruling stated that in relation to the National Estimates, the National Assembly performs a gate-keeping function, a power of disapproval is not contemplated by the Constitution. The Attorney General (AG) was updating reporters on the preliminary pronouncement of the CJ delivered today, on Governments application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access monies cut from National Budget. According to the ruling, he now has the power to do so, if necessary. An application for a Stay of Execution for the amended Order granted was submitted by Senior Counsel Rex McKay immediately after the ruling. This was objected to by the AG and refused by the CJ after hearing arguments on both sides. While the case is still ongoing and has been adjourned to September 6, 2012, the AG stated, I am pleased with the courts ruling. My submissions have been vindicated. He said that according to the ruling of the CJ, when the National Assembly cut the 2012 National Estimates and Expenditures, they acted outside of the constitution and therefore unconstitutionally. AG Nandlall said also that the court proceeds to say that the Minister of Finance is resided with the power under the Constitution and the law, to withdraw from the Contingency and the Consolidated Funds, whenever the Minister has formed the opinion that there is a need to do so, and that is what the law says. More importantly, he noted that with regard to the preliminary pronouncement of the court that the reduction is unconstitutional, the Minister is now free to exercise his statutory and constitutional powers; which is to withdraw from the Consolidated and/or the Contingency Funds for the purpose of funding agencies where he feels that there has been an insufficient allocation made. With respect to the vindication of his submissions that the cuts were unconstitutional, AG Nandlall referred to page 17 of the judgment which states: Applying that doctrine to the interpretation of article 218, it does appear to the court that it was not permissible for the National Assembly to cut or to reduce the estimates and expenditures to any particular figure since in so doing, the National Assembly was both determining and approving such estimates. If the drafters of the Constitution has wanted the National Assembly to exercise such a power they would have easily conferred such a power on it in the Constitution in express terms as was done in India- see Article 113 (2) of the Constitution of India; or Australia. The CJs ruling is that the Minister of Finance based upon his opinion as outlined in the Constitution and the Financial Management and Accountability Act, is free to form an opinion as to whether or not he needs additional monies in respect of the Estimates and
66

if the Minister forms that opinion, then he is free to withdraw the money and then seek Parliamentary approval. In relation to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), because that body is a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, the CJ has made an Order in relation to that one in particular. In relation to the remaining reliefs which are the substantive reliefs, those are left to be granted when the matter is fully heard and determined. The AG explained that the Constitution allows the Minister of Finance to access monies from the Consolidated Fund in two ways, one before going to Parliament, and the other subsequent to going to Parliament. Thus the CJ in his ruling has said that because the ERC is a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, it is not subject to parliamentary approval. Additionally, the CJ has ruled that: if the Minister of Finance finds that the amounts appropriated by the Appropriation Act are insufficient, its open to him to lay before the National Assembly, a Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure under Article 218 (3) of the Constitution. Additionally, if he is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure for which provision has not been made, it is open to him to approve a Contingency Fund advance or advances by the issuance of drawing rights This ruling, the AG states, has paved the way for the Minister to now exercise his opinion and his statutory powers for all of the budget cuts. The case is divided into two parts, Interlocutory and Substantive. The Interlocutory part has been concluded, with the Substantive action left to be determined. 46. Oppositions no-confidence motion in Minister Rohee precipitous and unconstitutional , July 24, 2012 The Oppositions move for a no confidence motion in Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, at tomorrows Sitting of the National Assembly is precipitous and unconstitutional, according to Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, as the Constitution of the land states how a Minister can be removed from Office. The Opposition has now turned to blaming the Minister for the Linden deaths even though the police have reported that no political directive was given for their actions during the July 18 clash between themselves and the protestors that left three dead and, the Minister himself stating that he has a clear conscience and had no hand in whatever actions the police took. Speaking on the National Communications Network on a discussion programme accompanied by Minister of Public Works Robeson Benn, and which focused on the Linden situation, Minister Nandlall stated that, That type of posterior is predetermining and pre-empting the mandate and the remit of the Commission of Enquiry which is being set up because it is simply determining that Minister Rohee is
67

somehow responsible. Not because a person is a Minister and an agency which falls under him commits an error; let us assume that an error was committed on the part of the police that ipso facto render that Minister at fault. The Attorney General stated that democracy; the law certainly doesnt operate like that and therefore, to move such a motion or to adopt such a posterior is clearly pre -emptive and on that basis it is a precipitous posture to adopt. If that motion unfolds tomorrow in the National Assembly, he said he will, as Attorney General be placed again in the invidious position of stating that the National Assembly is acting unconstitutionally and ultra-vires and is arrogating unto itself powers and jurisdiction and functions which it does not have and cannot perform. The constitution of our country, which is the supreme law of our land, provides specifically how a minister of the government who sits in the National Assembly can vacate office and, it lists several grounds. The President can revoke his appointment; the minister must be convicted of a criminal offence; or the minister is insane or the Minister resigns. These are the subject of express provisions of the constitution of our country, so we dont have to speculate on what grounds a minister can be removed. No confidence by the Parliament is not one of them, Minister Nandlall stated. Further, if the leader of list recalls that minister, then the recall legislation can be used to remove him. There is no way that a minister can be pushed out of office by the Parliament on the ground that he does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament. For the simple reasons outlined the Minister enjoys office due to the confidence which is reposed in him by the President. It is the President that appoints him and only the President can dis-appoint him. A minister does not hold office at the pleasure of Parliament, so this talk about moving a motion in the National Assembly again, it is people using the situation of Linden, using the tragedy of the people of Linden and riding on the back of that tragedy to pursue persecute and prosecute their own political agenda, the AG stated. 47. No-confidence motion against Home Affairs Minister, a dangerous move, July 25, 2012 Presidential Advisor on Governance and PPP/Cs Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira today slammed the Opposition, particularly, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), for reneging on an agreement yet again, with regards to the Linden issue. Leader of the Opposition, David Granger today moved a No Confidence Motion against Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, which was allowed by the Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the requisite notice period in bringing the Motion to the House, was not adhered to. Government stood firm in its view that due to the purport of the content of the Motion coupled with the issue of Government having the right to respond, the necessary period of notice should have been heeded. Moreover, parliamentary conventions and practices dictate that any Motion of No Confidence against a member of Parliament, a Minister or
68

the government must have an agreed date on when it will be debated; further, amendments to the said Motion is also permissible. Teixeira pointed out that since the Standing Orders do not make any reference to Motions of No Confidence, proceeding with this Motion would be eroding normal and accepted parliamentary procedures. President Donald Ramotar had announced that a full investigation will be launched into the fatal shooting of three Linden protestors. During his meetings with representatives of the APNU, AFC, Regional Chairman, Region 10, Sharma Solomon and the private sector, an agreement was reached to have a Commission of Inquiry investigate the events leading up the shootings. Subsequently, APNU member, Joseph Harmon and Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon were assigned to complete the drafting of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Commission by August 2. Governments Chief Whip called the Motion a dangerous move and lamented that, what the Opposition and the APNU in particular, are doing to go to a Motion of No Confidence against Minister Rohee is really damaging and practically throwing out an agreement that was reached to have a Commission of Inquiry. She added that moving ahead with it, is an erosion of the parliamentary democracy for which many people have fought hard. The Motion of No Confidence assumes guilt of both the police and the Minister and this is reprehensible in the light of a Commission of Inquiry. It therefore says to this Commission that you either take a pre-judged situation that the Minister is guilty and the police are guilty and therefore the role of the Commission is now compromised, she stated. The President held another meeting on July 23 with the Regional Chairman, who was accompanied by Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon, Dr. Rupert Roopnarine and Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes and several other agreements were made. These include agreements to have a technical team look into to all the practical implications with respect to electricity tariffs in Linden and in the interim, to put on hold, the July 1 deadline for the increase. Further, agreements were made to look at economic initiatives that would help to further advance the development of Linden. At the end of the meeting, Government committed to draft the language to reflect the discussions that were held. These were submitted to Solomon and all other stakeholders who were involved in the talks since July 18; at the moment, Government is still awaiting a response from Solomon. So the development in the Parliament is to hype up and to continue to raise the ante instead of finding a way forward, Teixeira concluded. 48. Only President can remove Minister Rohee - if commission of inquiry finds him responsible, July 26, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs last evening, as the debate commenced on the Oppositions no-confidence motion in the National Assembly against Minister of
69

Home Affairs Clement Rohee, reiterated that only the President can remove Minister Rohee from office and that Article 183 of the Constitution states on what grounds such an official can be removed. The Attorney General said that he recognised that what transpired in Linden on July 18 last is a tragedy which is beyond disputation. The President, exercising powers which reside in him under the Commission of Inquiry Act, committed himself to the establishment of a commission to inquire into this tragedyonly the Commission of Inquiry could determine the Home Affairs Minister responsible, the Attorney General said. He explained that the motion in its entirety is one that pre-empts, prejudices and undermines the integrity of a process to which parties would have committed themselves, as the call is being made for Minister Rohee to resign and for the members of the National Assembly to vote that they have no confidence in him. The legal truth of the matter is that Mr. Rohee does not hold office due to the confidence of this Assemblya Minister is appointed under the constitution by the Presidenthe comes here as an elected officialtherefore, only the President can remove him, Minister Nandlall said. He added that by making such a calling for the Minister of Home Affairs to go, indicates that there is a conclusion that he is responsible, however that decision is to be made by the Commission of Inquiry. We can speak here in this parliament from now till thy kingdom come but, the fact remains that the National Assembly has no power of removal of a minister, the Attorney General stated. President Donald Ramotar had announced that a full investigation will be launched into the fatal shooting of three Linden protestors and during a meeting with the opposition, Region 10 Chairman and the private sector, an agreement was reached to have a Commission of Inquiry investigate the July 18 events in the mining town. Article 183 of the constitution speaks to Ministers and it says how ministers are to be removed from office - a minister having been appointed by the President cannot be removed by the National Assemblythe National Assembly has no power to remove Minister Roheethe National Assembly has no power in law or under the constitution to remove Minister Rohee from office, the Legal Affairs Minister explained. Further, Article 184 of the constitution is the only article within it that speaks about the no confidence of any official in the National Assembly, and that official is the leader of the opposition. Relationship with Police On the issue of the Minister of Home Affairs and his relationship with the police, Minister Nandlall explained that it is guided by Section 7 of the Police Act.
70

49.Parliament has no jurisdiction over a Ministers appointment, removal from Office- HPS , July 26, 2012

While the Parliament can debate a Motion of no confidence in a Minister of Government, it is not vested with the power to remove that Minister from Office. Only the Head of State is bestowed the power to appoint and remove members from his Cabinet. This matter was today elucidated by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet media briefing at the Office of the President. Government on July 18 pledged to investigate the Linden shootings which subsequently evolved into a definitive instrument, a Commission of Inquiry. Many of the assertions that have already being taken public in Parliament about what transpired seem to be super-imposing; substituting a reality that has not yet defined by the results of this investigation. What transpired in Parliament yesterday, makes a Commission of Inquiry unnecessary, everybody seems to know what happened, who caused it and who is responsible, Dr. Luncheon said. Governments Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira said that, the Motion of no confidence assumes guilt of both the police and the Minister and this is reprehensible in the light of a Commission of Inquiry. It therefore says to this Commission that you either take a prejudged situation that the Minister is guilty and the police are guilty and therefore the role of the Commission is now compromised. The HPS spoke of the abandonment of the last Sittings order paper to allow for the implementation of the Speakers ruling to entertain the discussions, debates and consideration of a no confidence Motion in Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee. Governments business included the second reading and anticipated passage of the Official Gazzette Bill and the tabling of the Local Government Commission Bill and the Local Government (Amendment) Bill. The parties to the talks in the Inter-Parliamentary Political Party Dialogue had agreed to have the latter two pieces of legislation re-tabled and subjected to the consideration of the House. However, these matters are now left pending as a result of what actually transpired on July 25. Government is also hoping to move the Motion on the issues that derived from the 2012 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) which includes: capital punishment, corporal punishment and de-criminalising of same sex unions before the House goes into recess on August 10. 50. Opposition Motion to remove Home Affairs Minister premature, July 31, 2012 After about 10 hours of grueling debates in the National Assembly last evening, the Parliamentary Opposition again teamed up; using their one-seat majority to pass a Motion of No Confidence, which was described by Government MPs as premature, against Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee.
71

The Motion, which was presented by Opposition Leader, David Granger, called on the House to condemn the killing of, and injury to, several protestors at Linden on July 18 and demands the resignation of Minister Rohee. It implied that the actions taken by the police on the day in question were on the instructions of the Minister. Shortly after the unfortunate incident occurred, President Donald Ramotar met with the Opposition and an agreement was reached to establish a Commission of Inquiry which will launch an investigation into the matter, after which those found to be culpable, will be made to face the full brunt of the law. The adoption of this Motion however, even before the work of the Commission has commenced, flies in the face of the agreement that was made and reprehensibly assumes guilt of both the police and the Minister. Granger, defended the Motion saying that it is pre-emptive, in that it seeks to prevent further mischief and police misconduct. Meanwhile, A Partnerhship for National Unity (APNU), Carl Greenidge said that shooting at protestors seems to be the PPP/Cs first response. He also lamented that to date, the President has not yet visited the Linden to meet with the citizens despite the fact that the Guyanese Head of State has had to postpone his planned visit to the mining town scheduled for last Saturday. During the course of that day, the Joint Services Heads on the scene, apprised the President of several failed attempts at controlling protesters who obstructed the Kara Kara access bridge to Linden and removed the logs, and other objects used to block the thoroughfare. PPP/C MP, Manzoor Nadir in his response spoke of all the initiatives that Government has undertaken to ensure that Region 10 residents enjoy the same services and opportunities as those in other parts of the country. Within the PPP/C Government, we understand that politics is all about working for the betterment of the people who they serve, and is a situation such as this any loss of life does not go to the credit of the Government; but rather it brings down GovernmentI ask myself who is to gainto ascribe motive for those killings directly to Minister Rohee, I think is most atrocious, he said. With regards to the electricity tariff increase, which was described by many Opposition members as a burden foisted on them, Nadir said that the issue of normalising electricity rates in Linden has long been on the agenda. Alliance for Change (AFC) member, Moses Nagamootoo in his presentation stated that his Party is not accusing the Minister of being guilty; however, they want due process to be followed in the investigations which will be facilitated if the Minister is removed from Office. Nagamootoos colleague, Khemraj Ramjattan echoed similar sentiments; saying that while the Commission of Inquiry will verify if the Minister is criminally liable, the Motion seeks to hold him ministerially accountable for the actions of the police.
72

51. Motion to remove Govt Minister is impotent and misconceived, July 31, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall in a comment subsequent to the conclusion of the debate on the no confidence motion against Minister Clement Rohee in the National Assembly last evening, reiterated that the Motion is incapable in law or under the constitution, of removing a Minister from Office. Minister Rohee was appointed by the President as Home Affairs Minister and is also an elected geographic representative of the Parliament. Those who have embarked on this course as a mechanism to remove the Minister from Office have simply embarked on a wrong and misconceived course of actionhaving committed ourselves to a Commission of Inquiry and having participated in the actual crafting of the Terms of Reference (TORs) to specifically deal with any role or responsibility, if any, which can be ascribed to the Minister in relation to the Linden incident, I would prefer to say that we should leave the entire issue of who is responsible and who is not, to the remit of the Commission, he said. Thus far, the draft TORs that were crafted by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon and APNU member, Joseph Harmon are very wide and all-inclusive and deal with the role of the police and political organisations, issue of damage to property, the situation that was facing the police immediately prior to the shooting, and causes of death of the three persons. The process that is embarked upon to remove a Minister of Government is one that is impotent and misconceived and cannot yield this result. Either Minister Rohee resigns voluntarily, the President requests him to resign or he is removed at an elections, the AG maintained. With regards to the AFCs constant harping on ministerial responsibilities, Minister Nandlall explained that a minister is responsible for a sector (in this case Minister Rohee holds ministerial responsibility for the police force). However, this cannot and does not mean that the Minister is responsible in terms of attracting culpability in respect of the polices conduct at Linden on that day; that distinction was lost on the AFC in particular, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan. One would expect that as a lawyer, at a minimum, he would appreciate this vital distinction. Further, that he would appreciate that in no civilized system, liability would be ascribed and sanction imposed without an investigation and without evidence, especially in the context where Minister Rohee continues to assert his innocence and non-involvement in the incident under question. The National Assembly simply cannot perform the functions of investigation or evidence taking, he stated.

73

The Opposition spoke to conventions in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, stating that the Parliament is governed by such conventions in the absence of a written constitution. In Guyana, we have what is called a constitutional democracy; we are governed by a written constitution that speaks directly as to how a Minister will be removed from Office. Therefore, we cannot rely on British conventions in the context of jurisdiction that has no constitution in writing and we cannot transpose that convention and apply it here; when we have a constitution that speaks specifically to the removal of a minister, the AG underscored. In any event a motion is simply an expression of the Houses opinion on a given issue. It has no binding effect on the government and all the authorities on parliamentary practice and procedures confirm this. Once again we have witnessed an abuse of parliamentary process and a waste of taxpayers money, Minister Nandall stated. Government had proposed several amendments to the Motion, which according to Governments Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, offered all sides of the House, an opportunity to work together to reach an agreement on how best to address the situation. However, that opportunity was ignored by the Opposition, who voted against it. 52. Oppositions no-confidence motion premature and recklessly disengaging, August 2, 2012 Cabinet has condemned the Oppositions No Confidence motion against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, on the basis that it is premature and recklessly disengaging, and has committed to the Commission of Inquiry, which when completed will investigate the unfortunate circumstances, surrounding the death of three Linden protestors, Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon told the media today. The resolution by the Parliamentary Opposition flies in the face of the logic underpinning their support for the unilateral initiative of the Administration to commit to an investigation of those tragic circumstances in Region Ten, Dr Luncheon stated. The HPS stated that Cabinet Ministers could not have helped being seriously disappointed with the move, as the Opposition was at the time in possession of the facts and subsequently knew what would arise from the completion of the investigation. Dr. Luncheon noted that the call for such an investigation clearly shows that the views are not one of reasonable thinking people. I think also that because of such spurious grounds, indeed the commitment to an investigation as far as Cabinet and its Members are concerned, stays a decision that deals with the outcome of the investigation that has not yet started, he said. Opposition Members have been spurring disruption in the mining town on the issue; despite the Commission of Inquiry into the deaths of the Linden protestors has not yet commenced its work.
74

The no confidence motion, the Cabinet Secretary describes as an unworthy excursion at the level of the National Assembly, as it clearly demonstrates the Oppositions motives on the July 18 event. It is clear, their commitment to a Commission of Inquiry- a tactic suggestion that they are not beholden to the truth and the whole truth to have a motion of no confidence based on what would be unveiled by the Inquirythere must be some other motive that is driving this process, he explained. Thus far, there have been calls by the public for Opposition Members to work collaboratively with the Administration so as to have an investigation into the circumstances which surround the deaths. The three protestors were shot, reportedly by members of the Guyana Police Force after an industrial unrest in the mining town over an increase in the electricity tariff. Since then disgruntled demonstrators have blocked the main entrance in Linden, and called for a total shut down of the region. Despite, the Head of State publicly announcing his visit to the mining town, the angry protestors refused to desist from their actions such as blocking the roads until demands requested are met and the President was advised to postpone his visit. Urest implications Since the July 18 event, miners, loggers and bauxite workers have been calling on the Administration to intervene, as currently their operations have come to a standstill. Medium and large scale miners were forced to have their produce airlifted into mining camps, while the small scale miners have felt the brunt of the issue. Forestry operators have also recorded millions in losses as their lumber is stuck in the backdam and operators were forced to shut down their operations and send hundreds on the breadline. 53. Govt to approach Parliament for funds to finance Commission of Inquiry, August 3, 2012 President Donald Ramotar remains committed to meeting with the people of Linden in light of the fatal shootings of three protestors; unfortunately, the atmosphere that has pervaded since July 18 has not changed to make such an interaction conducive and appropriate. This is according to Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who was at the time speaking on a special programme with Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Jennifer Webster on the National Communications Network (NCN) today. Linden Situation
75

There have been continuous engagements among Government and a delegation representing the people of Linden and various other stakeholders including representatives of the private sector and other interest groups who are negotiating various proposals. However, while the modalities are being worked out, the situation on the ground remains largely the same in the sense that the roads and bridges remain blocked. As a result, there is great difficulty for people to access the interior regions (especially Regions Eight and Nine) via Linden. Businesses remain closed, hospitals and other health facilities remain affected and the climate in Linden remains one that is unstable, vital food and other supplies are rapidly running out to the detriment of the very people of Linden, some of whom are engaged in blocking ingress and egress in Linden, Minister Nandlall lamented. Government has agreed to put on hold the increase in electricity tariffs, which is the issue that started the demonstrations. The new tariff structure which was slated to take effect on July 1 would have seen residents paying the existing rates for the first 50 KwH and $50 per KwH for what is used above that limit. Elsewhere, consumers pay $65 KwH. The Administration has since given a commitment to review the new tariff structure and this will be worked out by a technical team that will be agreed upon by the Government and representatives of the people of Linden. This is an ongoing process; a meeting is scheduled for todayin light of all these engagements, one would have expected that at a minimum, there would have been some restoration to normalcy. Unfortunately that has not been the case and we have to continue to grapple to deal with the instability that is talking place in Linden, the AG said. He pointed out too, that the most important point is that the people would suffer the most from the damage which is being done on the ground to the economic welfare and the image of Linden as an investment destination. Meanwhile, Minister Webster said the onus is on the leaders, irrespective of political affiliation, to ensure that the right steps are taken in the decision-making process in the interest of the countrys development. She said that the adverse effects of the Linden situation can be seen and felt, especially by those living there as many economic activities have come to a stand-still. The banks were closed, the hospital was running out of medical supplies and many other vital services are not readily accessible to residents there. We need to look at making timely decisions, because the longer we take to agree on the way forward for Linden, then the recovery of that community will take a longer
76

timequite recently, one businessman indicated that he was going to close down his business establishment for good and if that happens then a number of people stand to lose their jobs. This is not the sort of scenario that we want for Linden, Minister Webster said. Commission of Inquiry and Terms of Reference Since the fatal shooting of the three protestors, President Donald Ramotar met with the Opposition and an agreement was reached to establish a Commission of Inquiry which will launch an investigation into the matter. Substantial progress has since been made with regards to the drafting of the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the Commission. Minister Nandlall said that so far, this has been a highly engaging and consultative process, of which he was apart. The TORs deals with the situation on the ground before July 18, composition of the units that were deployed to Linden, issues that the police were confronted with at the time, who were on the ground mobilising and leading the protestors, damage done to property, compensation for the people that were killed and injured, and the role, if any, of the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee in the actions that were taken by the police. The Commission of Inquirys TORs, which have been agreed upon are commendable wide and embracing; it encompasses all the issues that would arise, Minister Nandlall said. Government is in the process of trying to recruit suitable personnel, including international presence, to preside over and sit on the Commission. Moreover, the Finance Minister will have to approach the Parliament to seek approval for funds to be taken from the Consolidated Fund to finance this exercise, which is going to be a very expensive one. At the August 2 sitting of the National Assembly, an announcement was made of the TORs, which were drafted by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon and APNU member, Joseph Harmon. Responding to the Oppositions claim that the TORs was just a unilateral draft in which they had no input, the AG disclosed that around 10:00h on August 2, the final revised draft was emailed to them; however they didnt respond. We cannot hold this process up because of their non-response, especially in light of the fact that AFC member, Cathy Hughes is on record saying that we are dilating this process and that we should accelerate it. Here it is that we are accelerating the process and the very AFC members who are not responding to the several drafts that are being sent to them, stood in the Parliament and said that they are unaware, he explained. No Confidence Motion
77

With regards to the Motion of No Confidence that was moved by Leader of the Opposition, David Granger and adopted by the House, Minister Nandlall said that no sooner than the agreement was made to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the matter, this Motion surfaced, which seeks to indict by every allegation of wrongdoing that has been purported. He reiterated that, there is no power in the Parliament to move such a Motion against a Minister. Parliament speaks to a No Confidence Motion in relation to one elected official and that is the Leader of the Oppositionwe live in a constitutional democracy and every time the Constitution speaks to an issue that is what we must regulate our conduct by. 54. Govt debunks oppositions motion to review former presidents pension and benefits, August 3, 2012 Frivolous and vexatious, a controversy manufactured by the opposition for political mileage and unconstitutional are some of the words used by government Members of Parliament (MPs) to describe the oppositions motion titled Former Presidents Pensions and Benefits which was moved yesterday in the National Assembly by the Opposition.The joint parliamentary opposition used their one seat majority, to send the motion to a Select Committee for review, after a heated and lengthy debate. Inappropriate Addressing the legality of the motion, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the mechanism by way of a motion seeking the review of a Bill is inappropriate, and cannot be done, but rather the process of bringing a Bill to amend the law which already exists should be followed. A motion is moved for different purposes; none of them has ever been to remit a legislation to a Select Committee to be reviewed it was disclosed only recently that it costs this parliament $1.7M of taxpayers money to sit every session, therefore we must be careful and cautious in the manner in which we use taxpayers money we are going to send this to select committee, then in the committee make recommendations which will have to come back for adoption by the House, after which a draft bill will have to be crafted and laid in the National Assembly for debate all over again then for passagethat is a waste of time, Minister Nandlall emphasised. He argued that the same objective could be obtained and achieved, if the opposition could have worked together and crafted a Bill which will capture their concerns so that parliament would not have to be burdened to bear the expenditure of that consultation that they ought to have, themselves, come up with, then put it before the National Assembly for its approval or disapproval. Two-thirds majority

78

The Legal Affairs Minister asserted that a Bill that seeks to deal with pensions is one that would have to enjoy a 2/3 majority. Article 142 protects property from arbitrary seizuresproperty is not confined to immovable property alone but it also relates to money and pensions and that is protected as a fundamental rightArticle 149 (b) speaks also to and the side note is right to pension and gratuitywhich was put into our constitution as a result of the constitutional reform process, the Attorney General explained. He added that in this instance, a motion is being put to be sent to a Select Committee, to review the change of a law which is protected by the fundamental rights provision of Guyanas constitution. Article 222 speaks to the remuneration of holders of certain offices and amongst the persons listed as persons to which this article applies, includes Office of the President, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly, any Supreme Court Judge, members of the Elections Commission, Public Service Commission...offices which are given security in the constitution regarding the removal as well as security of tenure in relation to their remuneration packages, Minister Nandlall said. He asserted that the motion moved by APNU MP Carl Greenidge is one that seeks to take parliament down a road of unconstitutionality, which is the ultimate result that will flow from the motion. APNUs MP Rupert Roopnarine said that he does not believe that the motion filed is trespassing on the business of the judiciary in relation to review of legislation, while AFCs Khemraj Ramjattan argued that the motion that exists can lead to the process of review, moreso any member can bring a motion and the motion is asking for the Bill to be taken to a select committee. Opposition misrepresentation Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh argued that the issue of former presidents benefits and pensions became as contentious as it is because of deliberate mis-representation by the Opposition. The Finance Minister asserted that the former presidents benefits and others Act of 2009 was not a stand alone piece of legislation, but rather an installment to a family of legislation which was brought over the period 2009-2010 with a very clear intentionwhich was to place into statute the right into the statute books benefits and facilities which were previously being provided on a discretionary basis solely and purely by administrative fiat. If the truth is to be told, this administration should have been commended for bringing these pieces of legislation and for writing into law benefits and facilities that were previously being provided, purely by discretionary administrative fiat and to bring
79

certainty and predictability, to remove unpredictability, to eliminate the opportunity for capricious removal of benefits, to introduce some degree of certainty as to the expectations that could be had by the holders of these offices, the Finance Minister explained. He said what has been witnessed during the debate thus far can best be described as a brazen attempt by selected members of the opposition to manufacture a controversy and to deliberately spin the facts to create a misleading impression, solely for the purpose of political opportunism. Mover of the motion, APNUs Carl Greenidge said that the idea behind the moving the motion is to put caps on every item slated in the Act for the former president to enjoy. The motion seeks to have the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities Act 2009 repealed without prejudice; a parliamentary committee to be convened to examine the Pensions ( President, Parliamentary and Special Offices ) Act, part II section 4 ( Rate of President and calculation of pension 7/8 ceiling of pension) and to make proposals for their revision and that a revised superannuation package be sent by the Special Parliamentary Committee for consideration and approval by the National Assembly. 55. Govt MPs bemoan opposition leadership as Linden protest spirals out of control, August 5, 2012 Criminal activities are spiraling out of control in Linden as some protestors continue to hold ground and the apparent silence of opposition leaders about the reprehensible acts in a town that is now under siege is being questioned. Political experts and newspaper columnists are of the opinion that opposition forces are using Lindeners as pawns in a plot to win mileage out of the volatile situation which started off as a peaceful protest three weeks ago against the proposed phased electricity tariff hike in the bauxite town. You have elements who I suspect are utilising the protest activity for their own benefit and their own gain the question is what control the leadership still has in Linden, Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Parliamentarian Joseph Hamilton said in a three-man panel discussion on the National Communications Network (NCN) on Saturday. Police have arrested three persons in connection with robberies in the Rockstone area where motorists were ambushed after stopping at a section of a main road that was purposely destroyed. Yesterday vehicles transporting fuel and other supplies to frontier communities were vandalised in their attempts to pass the logs, and debris and other objects used by protestors to create blockades on the Linden thoroughfare.

80

Truck drivers and other motorists are reportedly being held at ransom while persons unknown to the town are being interrogated before passage is granted. There has to date been no condemnation of the errant acts by any member of the opposition camp and Member of Parliament Manzoor Nadir who was part of the panel believes the opposition has an incumbent duty. The opposition parties have to come out and disassociate themselves now with what is happening on the ground in Linden. The extortion, the banditry, that is not the protest the good people of Linden had staged, Nadir said. Last week President Donald Ramotar, acting on the advice of Heads of the Joint Services postponed his announced visit to Linden after protestors resisted efforts by the security forces to clear the roads as instructed by the Commander- in -Chief of the Armed Forces. Chairman of Region Ten Sharma Solomon, was reported in the media saying at a public rally on the eve of the Presidents visit that neither the President nor his aides informed him of the visit though it was publicised. The Chairman who recently took up the Region Ten post and has been integral in talks with the Government at the Office of the President has not convinced Hamilton that he can handle the current situation. The Chairman of the Region is a young politician who doesnt have the experience. It is his first entrance into politics at this level and secondly he is asked to fetch this burden to deal with a matter that is a crisis in the Region and therefore as I see it there needs to be more experienced heads involved in the activities and the discussion, Hamilton said. Solomon is backing the Linden protest action as justifiable. He has been more vocal on the issue than the usual nitpicking politicians like recently elected leader of the Peoples National Congress (PNC) David Granger who Hamilton believes is stymieing the oppositions unanimous position on the issue. Mr. Granger is playing what they call hold me lose me on this matter because at one time APNU and AFC are taking responsibility and theres another time when, in engagement with the government they say you have to speak to the people of Region Ten and the Regional Administration." The July 18 protest turned ugly when clashes between police and protestors led to three persons losing their lives and buildings razed by fire. Sections of civil society, perturbed by the situation made clarion calls for calm and President Donald Ramotar opened the door for talks with the leadership of the opposition political parties and the Region Ten administration to iron out differences. The complement of Cuban and Chinese medical doctors who were supplementing the delivery of health care in the Region had to be safely evacuated as a result of the unrest
81

and the quantity of pharmaceuticals are closely being monitored according to Hamilton. The government offered to put on hold, the July 1 deadline to which the electricity tariff hike was scheduled to take effect in Linden, and has moved to establish a technical team, comprising representatives of both sides of the political divide, to review options to the electricity tariff system. Whether the work of this panel would be successful given the call for a complete abolition of the new electricity tariff structure remains to be seen. Nadir doubts that any negotiation will gain positive ground under the current volatile situation. Speaking from experience in negotiations as former Minister of Labour, Nadir said, you cant negotiate under duress. A commission of inquiry was also set up to investigate the circumstances leading to the death of the three persons during the protest in Linden. 56. Opposition again votes down funds for Presidents Office and other agencies, August 9, 2012 The National Assembly today considered two financial papers totalling more than $1.5B and $12.1B respectively; which presented the House with another opportunity to restore the funds that were cut from the 2012 national estimates. However, the Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) again voted against provisions for agencies that fall under the Office of the President such as the Government Information Agency (GINA) and the National Communications Network (NCN), both of which were allocated a mere dollar from the 2012 budget. AFC MP, Khemraj Ramjattan questioned whether Government was going to make available, the Harry Parmessar report that came out of the inquiry into alleged financial irregularities at NCN. This report has been submitted to the Auditor General. Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh responded that while he is in no position to commit to making the report available; however, whatever the Auditor General concludes with regards to the report will no doubt be made publicly available, whether through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or otherwise. After several questions the Opposition agreed to restore the $1B subsidy that they had cut earlier this year, from the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) Inc. Expenditures for the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) and the State Planning Secretariat which comes under the Finance Ministry were once more voted against. APNU MP, Carl Greenidge questioned why the expenditure for CANU was returned to the House under the Finance Ministry instead of the Home Affairs Ministry as was recommended by the Auditor General. Minister Singh explained that the Ministry is in the process of implementing the said recommendation. He said that at the time when the national estimates were considered,
82

a proportion of the allocation for CANU was placed under the Home Affairs and was approved by the House. However, the remaining part of CANUs budget that was placed under the Finance Ministry was not approved. He further explained that given the fact that in recent years the full amounts have been budgeted under the Finance Ministry, the interim releases that were granted prior to the passage of the 2012 budget had to also be granted under the same Ministry until such time that an appropriation was approved for the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was that reason that an allocation equivalent to roughly a quarter of the requirements was provided under the Ministry of Finance and the remainder was provided under the Home Affairs Ministry with the expectation that upon the passage of the budget, that transition would have been effected, laying the stage for the transition to be fully effected from the 2013 budget, Minister Singh explained. When it was time to vote for these expenditures, a division was called which resulted in 27 members for as opposed to 32 members against it; denying these vital agencies of the necessary funds, yet again. Moving on the financial paper two, approval of expenditures under the Office of the President and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was again voted out. This included: $127.4M for the payment of wages and salaries to contracted employees, $68.6M for the payment for climate change consultancies and legal fees, and $27M and $500M respectively to cover cost incurred during the claims and objections period and the payment of stipend and honoraria to GECOM staff. On the other hand, approval was granted for the $635M that was sought to meet additional cost associated with the increase in old age pension from $8,100 to $10,000 per month as well as $170M to advance Governments Information Communication Technology programme and $5.3B for the acquisition of a 26 megawatt power plant, which will be placed at Vreed-en-Hoop, West Coast Demerara to mitigate generation shortfall. Late this evening, the Finance Minister was being grilled by Opposition Members of Parliament on the $1.9B allocation for a host of Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) initiatives following which the money was approved. They also agreed to $116.9 M as additional inflows for the Agriculture Ministrys Conservancy Adaptation Project. 57. Oppositions refusal to restore cut funds is violation of Court Order, August 10, 2012 During the final sitting before the first recess of the 10th Parliament, the Opposition benches with a one seat majority refused to approve financial papers 1 and 2 of 2012 submitted by Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh.
83

The two financial papers totalling more than $1.5B and $12.1B respectively, presented the House with another opportunity to restore the funds that were cut from the 2012 national estimates. However, the Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) again voted against provisions for agencies that fall under the Office of the President such as the Government Information Agency (GINA) and the National Communications Network (NCN), both of which were allocated a mere dollar from the 2012 budget, the Office of the President and the Customs Anti Narcotics Unit (CANU). Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall reflected that the opposition said at the time when they cut the budget and, even thereafter, through the mouth of the Opposition Leader himself, and several other members, that we should bring it back and then we can reconsider it once additional information is given. He observed that the sums were on Thursday brought back to the Assembly for approval and were again rejected. However, the Minister noted that in addition to bringing it back, we have in support of our position now the ruling of the Chief Justice. On July 18 in a Preliminary verdict, Chief Justice Ian Chang ruled that the cuts to the National Budget are unlawful and unconstitutional, and pointed out very clearly that the power resides with the Finance Minister to remedy the situation, Minister Nandlall stated. He stated also that the CJ also pointed to various articles in the Constitution of Guyana that allow the Finance Minister the power and the authority to remedy the situation, depending whether or not the Minister forms the opinion that the situation warrants an intervention on his part. Minister Nandlall said the Finance Minister Ashni Singh, acting upon the judgment of the CJ, has now brought to the parliament in pursuance of the various Articles of the Constitution that authorise him to do so, the requisite applications for the monies which were reduced and cut, and here again in flagrant disregard of the ruling of the CJ, in violation of the judicial pronouncements of the CJ, the National Assembly by a majority of one, has again rejected the budget, rejected restoring the cuts thereby violating the letter and the spirit of that judgment. The Legal Affairs Minister stated that the opposition, keep violating the law, the Constitution, the norms and traditions of Parliament. Now they have gone a notch higher, they are violating Court Orders and Court pronouncements. In particular, the CJ specifically ordered that the sums which were cut from the Ethnic Relations Commissions budget be restored immediately because these are monies that are directly charged on the Consolidated Fund and therefore, do not require any form of parliamentary approval. In light of this specific ruling, one would have expected that at a minimum, the National Assembly would have ensured that this specific order made by the CJ would have been obeyed. Unfortunately, they acted in complete disregard of this specific direction of the
84

CJ. This type of contumacious conduct is not only contentious of the CJs ruling but is an insult to the entire judiciary. Meanwhile Governments Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira stated that the oppositions move is a clear indication that they are not operating in good faith. They say one thing and do another thing. They are constantly changing the goal posts. They have voted against a number of provisions. It is very clear that the opposition, in particular APNU is not acting in good faith, she declared. This is the level of duplicity and capriciousness that is going on in the Opposition in Guyana, she added. 58. Parliamentary opposition showed its hand in final sitting , August 17, 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon today at his weekly post-Cabinet briefing told media operatives that the final sitting of the National Assembly saw the combined parliamentary opposition showing its hand, with the manner in which they dealt with the financial papers brought by government, seeking a restoration of items that were reduced to $1, and additional inflows for the Ministry of Home Affairs Citizen Security Programme. He added that the unusual Sitting that lasted into the wee hours of the morning saw the ominous walk out phenomenon of the opposition starting again, when they resorted to that step when Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee was addressing the House. That Sitting also revealed more about the mindset of the opposition, specifically this time with their treatment of the financial paperstheir passions however, ran wild as before with funding for Office of the President expenditure and Ministry of Finance, Dr. Luncheon said. He explained that this decision was again made to vote down such financial requests in light of the Chief Justices ruling, the constitutional provision which expressly provides for supplementary papers for a restoration and the Leader of the Opposition David Granger, who declared that supplementary provision would be a possible solution to the cuts made to the budget in late April. The media and the Guyana Human Rights Association were loud with their usual silencemaybe October 9, 2012 and, thereafter will bring better days to this National Assembly, Dr Luncheon opined. Dr. Luncheon said that credit should not be given to the combined parliamentary opposition, who could not argue for electricity subsidies being continued in Linden and vote to deny GPL funds clearly identified for subsidies elsewhere in the grid, nor could they have voted against GRIF funding in the face of the Amerindian people and their voices of resentment. The National Assembly will not be meeting as parliaments recess commenced on August 10 and Sittings would resume on October 9, 2012. The August 9 sitting of parliament saw Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh tabling Supplementary Financial
85

Papers 1 and 2 of 2012, seeking a restoration of the sums that were removed from Budget by the joint parliamentary Opposition in April, and additional financial inflows for the execution of works in various sectors. Whilst some of the items from both financial papers were restored, expenditure under the Office of the President and the Ministry of Finance were still not approved. Additionally, the combined opposition voted down additional inflows of $400M for the Ministry of Home Affairs Citizen Security Programme, citing their displeasure with Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, as the reason behind the latter disapproval. 59. Parliamentary opposition tables motions which are palpably unconstitutional, August 27, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall has reiterated that since the commencement of the Tenth Parliament the joint parliamentary opposition has tabled motions which offend statutory provisions and the constitution. The Parliamentary opposition tables motions which are palpably unconstitutional, he stated during the television programme The Factor aired on Channel 28. An example of one such case was the motion that sought a review of the National Industrial and Commercial investments Limited (NICIL) with the resolve clause which is seeking to have the entitys accounts being subjected to an audit by a private auditor. The Constitution of Guyana which is the supreme law of the land reposes in the auditor general, the sole and exclusive responsibility of audits in respect of state company operations, state entities, and government controlled bodiesNICIL is one such body, Minister Nandlall said. He explained that for the parliament in a motion, to resolve and make a decision to say that NICIL must be audited by a private accountant is a violation of that constitutional function which resides that responsibility exclusively with the auditor general. The AG stated that the joint opposition does not appreciate the responsibilities which reside upon them as a majority grouping in the parliament, hence the type of dereliction of duty being seen. Thats what they aredereliction of dutyyou have a motion which seeks clearly to reverse the pensions of the past presidentwhich was presented to the parliamentwhen the argument unfolded and it was pointed out to them that it is absolutely unconstitutional for parliament to review its own legislationthey have to take it to the court for them (the court) to rule, Minister Nandlall explained. The Court in Guyanas Westminster Constitutional structure in which the separation of power is a fundamental principle and concept of the judiciary, has always been assigned a particular type of responsibility, that is to examine and scrutinise the functions of the other two branches (Executive and Legislative) of government to keep them in check, he said. That has always been the role of the courtwhoever advanced the argument that the court cannot review a ruling made by parliament does not understand basic constitutional law, Minister Nandlall said.

86

He added that whilst this is only one example where the opposition tabled motions that clashed with the constitution, there are several factors that can account for the conduct of the joint parliamentary opposition. They have created an expectation to their constituency which is not grounded in reality, which is once they have the majority, things will changewhen the realisation has dawned upon them that it is not as simplistic as thatthey have become desperate and all manner of mechanisms are being utilised whether they can achieve the objective or not, Minister Nandlall said. It is only during the debates that the joint parliamentary opposition realises that these things cannot be changed by motions, he said. There was a motion calling for the Finance Minister to produce a host of documents in relation to NICIL by a certain date in Junethat motion was debated in Julyseven or eight members (opposition) spoke on the motionnot one of them addressed the issue of the date so that the motion had died a natural death even before it was debated, Minister Nandlall said. He added that whilst training is always important in any field of endeavour, persons were elected by the people of the country to represent their interests competently. The people were never told when these people were canvassing themselves that they didnt understand parliamentary proceduresyou cannot go into parliament then learnif you are aspiring to be a parliamentarian you must learn the basics first, Minister Nandlall asserted. He believes that there is no excuse for the type of mistakes that are being made by the opposition. A motion is a mechanism which is available to the Members of Parliament to discuss any given issue and, it concludes in a decision by the National Assembly. Any motion emanating from the opposition benches must satisfy certain requirements to which the Clerk of the National Assembly, in conjunction with the Speaker, would examine the motion to ensure that it does not collide with the constitution or any statutory provision in the countrys laws. 60. Opposition has a glorious role as a majority in parliament, August 31, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall recently said that based on the evidence available, there is obviously a patent misunderstanding and misconception of the role of the opposition, by the opposition themselves and, they have created a wrong expectation by their supporters. Minister Nandlall explained that the parliamentary opposition sees their role as one to fashion policies for the executive to execute as they believe they have some kind of power to instruct that they be carried out, however that is not the role of the opposition and unless they understand that, the Tenth parliament will not bear fruit as a majority parliament. They have a glorious role as a majority if they are to give effect to their role in a proper waythe Public Accounts Committee for example is a very powerful committeethey control all the committees in parliament and that is where they ought
87

to be wielding their powernot to bring motions to try to change the executives decisions, Minister Nandlall said. He explained that it is the executives role to craft decision to administer the affairs of this country and if they (government) do not do so in a manner that will benefit citizens, then the opposition can/will vote them out. The role of the opposition is to emphasise where we (government) have been deficient in those policies and not to craft their own policies and then impose it on the government and use the majority of one, to tell the executive to implement it, Minister Nandlall explained. He added that such measures used by the opposition to create a policy, would not be binding because the government must craft its own policies, as they (government) will, in crafting those policies, embark on consultation with various bodies including the opposition, who will have an input. They cannot use a motion to pass a policy and then direct, by the use of a majority of one of votes, get the parliament to direct the executive to implement itparliament has no power or authority or jurisdiction to do so, Minister Nandlall reiterated. Additionally, there cannot be legal, parliamentary or constitutional consequences for government if they do not adhere to such motions or decisions made by parliament. There is no legal mechanism recognised by the constitution of this country which would allow them to force the government to accept something the government does not want to accept, Minister Nandlall said. The Attorney General asserted that the motion dealing with the no-confidence with Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee was wrong from the beginning because the Constitution of Guyana holds the executive collectively responsible to the parliament and not an individual. The Constitution is very specific- Article 106they can ask the whole government to resign but you cannot ask one member of the executive to resignthe opposition in India sought to do a similar motion against a ministerthis was challenged in the Indian CourtsThe Indian Courts said that there is no individual responsibility which is owed to parliamentso that motion ought not to have been put on the order paper by the Clerk or the Speaker, Minister Nandlall asserted. He added that any action by the opposition which they may contemplate to take legallyfollowing from that decision in parliament on the basis of that no confidence motion would be one that would be wrong in law, misconceived and would be struck out by a court. Minister Nandlall explained that if the opposition used their one seat majority to pass a no confidence motion against the government, then the government will have to resign and within three months an election has to be called. The opposition in Guyanas parliamentary structure and in most parliaments designed by the Westminster model system of governance is mandated to exercise vigilance over
88

the executives conduct. In the execution of their duties they can scrutinise, criticise, examine the executives actions, ensure they are transparent, that public spending is done in an accountable fashion and the constitutional bodies which are to scrutinise governments function and watch dog the exercise of the executives functions is functioning in a manner that they are supposed to function. 61. Budget experience has fortified Govt resolve to resist attempts to stymie hinterland development President at opening of Heritage Month, September 1, 2012 Amerindian Heritage Month celebrations kicked off with zest and vigour as Guyanas first peoples began their annual month-long celebrations under the theme: Embracing Our Identity, Celebrating our Culture. The grand official opening of celebrations at the Amerindian village, Sophia Exhibition Site was dominated by youthful spirits during the cultural extravaganza and surrounded by a wide variety of indigenous foods, drinks, and craft. President Donald Ramotar during his feature address stressed on the Amerindian culture urging Amerindians to preserve it. He also warned that if they allow their languages to die, it would be the beginning of the end of their culture. Focusing on the theme of the celebrations, the Head of State said, a person who is not rooted in his heritage loses his identity, and is thus akin to a rolling stone. He added that Amerindians must continue to pass on their culture to the younger generations. He reiterated Governments support towards the preservation of the Amerindian culture and languages, which is indispensible towards the protection of their identity. President Ramotar outlined governments agenda towards the continued development of Amerindian hinterland communities through major projects, road networks, electrification and easier access into communities. He noted that the delayed attempts by the Parliamentary Opposition to correct their mistake of cutting the national budget had delayed a number of initiatives. To reject and resist attempts to stymie Governments support for greater development in the hinterland. He stated that in order to move Guyana forward and not imperil national development, all political parties need to be responsible and work together. That the indigenous people will be the central part of Guyanas development clearly shows that there is reason for celebration, the President added. It is only when we practice or traditions and culture, that we dont allow our heritage to die, he urged the gathering as he invited the rest of the nation to join with the Amerindians of their celebrations. Meanwhile, Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai stated that Government had taken great steps to preserve the Amerindian rights and heritage. Cultural protection has also found a place in the Amerindian Act of 2006, she stated.
89

She said that leaders are legally mandated to preserve the Amerindian traditional and cultural way of life. Minister Sukhai echoed the Presidents sentiments on the preservation of the culture and identity of Amerindians and recommitted her Ministrys support towards this. Other activities during Amerindian Heritage Month will include the continuation of cultural presentations, indigenous craft exhibitions, food and craft tents and other events at the Amerindian Village, Sophia. On Heritage Day, September 8, the Grand heritage village celebrations will take place at Micobie Village, Region 8, while the Sports & fun weekend will take place in Georgetown at the Carifesta Sports complex on September 15 and 16. The annual Heritage walk showcasing the active lifestyle of the Amerindians will take place on Sunday Sept 23 while the children will be involved in mural painting at the Kitty seawall on Sept 22 -23 from 9.00 hrs daily. The celebrations wind down with a Dinner on September 28 at the Regency Suites Hotel in Hadfield Street. 62. 2012 Budget cuts Court case to take its normal course, September 6, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall today stated that he will not respond to the Defence filed by the Opposition before the Chief Justice. The case relating to cuts in the 2012 National Budget will now follow the normal course of justice. AG Nandlall indicated to Chief Justice Ian Chang that he will file a Request for Hearing which will have to be gazetted before a date is allocated for hearing of the case. The High Court case brought by the Government against the Opposition regarding the Budget cuts began on June 7, 2012 with Governments application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access monies cut from National Budget The application was made in the Chambers of the Chief Justice by Minister Nandlall, who said that the Order would permit the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to withdraw from the Contingency Funds, the sums of money originally budgeted for. The argument presented in Chambers was based on the Constitutional structure of the Guyana Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Minister Nandlall put forward that each must have functional autonomy in the discharge of its respective functions and the wherewithal to do so. This would include the necessary finances to fulfill those functions.

90

The Minister stated that the actions of the National Assembly had taken away that ability from the Executive, several other constitutional creations, and several other important executive creations, bodies that were created by executive decisions. The argument also included the contention that the National Assembly rejected the Finance Ministers estimates, and presented and passed their own estimates. The Alliance for Change and A Partnership for National Unity in their argument stated that there is no separation of powers under the Constitution. They claimed that cutting the budget was not unconstitutional, but that the Order being sought was, and that the entire court matter was misconceived and heavily flawed. The Opposition however, was unable to demonstrate this in their arguments and were also unable to point to the relevant constitutional provisions to show that they have the power to cut the budgeted estimates and expenditures for 2012 as presented by the Minister of Finance. Accordingly, on July 18 in a Preliminary Ruling, the Chief Justice stated that the National Assembly has no power under the constitution to reduce the National Estimates when they are presented for approval. The ruling stated that in relation to the National Estimates, the National Assembly performs a gate-keeping function, a power of disapproval is not contemplated by the Constitution. AG Nandlall welcomed the ruling saying that his submissions were vindicated. He explained that according to the ruling of the CJ, when the National Assembly cut the 2012 National Estimates and Expenditures, they acted outside of the constitution and therefore unconstitutionally. He also pointed out that the court in the ruling stated that the Minister of Finance is resided with the power under the Constitution and the law, to withdraw from the Contingency and the Consolidated Funds, whenever the Minister has formed the opinion that there is a need to do so, and that is what the law says. More importantly, he noted that with regard to the preliminary pronouncement of the court that the reduction was unconstitutional. The Minister is now free to exercise his statutory and constitutional powers; which is to withdraw from the Consolidated and/or the Contingency Funds for the purpose of funding agencies where he feels that there has been an insufficient allocation made. In relation to the funding cut from the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), the CJ in his ruling stated that because the commission is a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, it is not subject to parliamentary approval. The CJs ruling paved the way for the Finance Minister to exercise his opinion and his statutory powers for all of the budget cuts which he proceeded to so do. Meanwhile,
91

opposition lawyers allegedly misrepresented the CJs ruling by stating that no Order sought by the AG was granted. They have stated that the CJ has ruled only that the ERC be allowed funds, and that applications for funds to be restored to other agencies have been refused. In April of this year after the presentation of the National Budget to the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance, and the detailed examination of the estimates by the Opposition benches, it was ruled that the budget be slashed by $20.9B. As a result there were no financial allocations made for several Government agencies, and the jobs of state employees were put on the line. The agencies affected include the Government Information Agency; National Communication Network; Ethnic Relations Commission; State Planning Secretariat, Low Carbon Development Strategy for which the Amerindian Community in Guyana had major projects put on hold; Guyana Elections Commission; Office of the President the major arm of the Executive; Office of the Prime Minister; ICT development One Laptop Per Family; Customs Anti Narcotic Unit and the Guyana Power and Light Company. The lack of funding for these agencies was severely felt, since creditors withdrew credit pending payment of outstanding bills, while in some cases employees were not paid for over two months. Lawyers representing the Opposition include, Rex McKay, Robert Corbin, Joseph Harmon, Basil Williams, James Bond, Llewellyn John and Debra Backer. Senior Counsel Ashton Chase is representing the Minister of Finance, while the Government of Guyana is represented by the Attorney General and Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Seenath Jairam. 63. AG issues high court challenge to Oppositions no-confidence motion against Minister Rohee, September 14, 2012 Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall has issued a high court challenge to the no-confidence motion that was moved by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Leader, David Granger and passed in the National Assembly on July 30. The constitutional notice of motion was filed on September 13, and seeks to have the Oppositions motion declared as, unlawful, a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, null, void and without any binding force or effect in so far as it purports to censure and express no-confidence in the Home Affairs Minister. The notice made mention of the fact that since the passing of the Motion, leaders of both APNU and Alliance for Change (AFC) have made statements to the effect that the National Assembly will sanction Minister Rohee if the said no-confidence motion is ignored by him and/or the Government.

92

The no-confidence motion against Minister Rohee is incapable in law or under the constitution, of removing him from Office. Ministers are appointed by the President of Guyana in accordance with Article 106 and are assigned ministerial portfolios by the Head of State in accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Home Affairs Minister is also an elected geographic representative of the Parliament. Government has held firm to the view that this no-confidence motion is simply an expression of the Houses opinion on a given issue as it has no binding effect on the government and as such, it is unconstitutional and an abuse of the parliamentary process. The motion was brought to the House subsequent to the protest in Linden over electricity tariffs which led to the unfortunate killing of three Lindeners. During that time, all Parties were engaged in consultations and a consensus was reached for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to launch an investigation into the matter, after which those found to be culpable, will be made to face the full brunt of the law. However, this no-confidence motion was taken to the House before the Commission was even set up; flying in the face of the agreement that was reached. 64. AG Nandlall responds to APNU statements, September 20, 2012 Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, during a telephone interview with the Government Information Agency responded to the statements made by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) at its press conference today with regards to the Terms of Reference (TORs) of the Linden Commission of Inquiry and the AGs recourse to the court on another matter. The following is the AGs response. Court APNU is being propagandistic. Reading their statement I get a feeling of dj vu. These were the identical sentiments expressed in the budget cut matter in which they contended that the court had no jurisdiction to interfere and, that they had the power to cut the budget. On both counts, the court ruling established that they were abysmally wrong. The court not only assumed jurisdiction, but ruled that they had no power to reduce the budget and consequently pronounced that their action of cutting the budget was unlawful. Its either they are being disingenuous or they have misconstrued the court ruling. All that the government is seeking to do in these proceedings, as well as previous proceedings, is to ensure that the National Assembly acts intra constitutionally and not extra constitutionally. The legal issues which are raised in all these proceedings have never been decided by a court. Therefore, it is imperative to our fledgling democracy that we ventilate them and get judicial guidance because there are obviously conflicting views on these issues
93

.Rather than be critical of these legal challenges, they should be encouraged for the development of our constitutional jurisprudence and our democracy. Therefore, the governments approach should be emulated, not criticised. The alternative is confrontation and chaos. TORs The objections of the APNU to the TORs for the Linden Commission of Enquiry are indeed inexplicable. Representatives of the APNU sat with representatives of the Government and jointly crafted those TORs. From the beginning to the very end they made inputs. The TORs were deemed to be final only after the government and the joint opposition were in complete agreement on each of the matters contained therein. They are now estopped from in any manner criticising them. The TORs are very much theirs as they are the governments. The APNU cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time when it is politically and propagandistically exigent for them to do so. They have become so indoctrinated in a mentality to oppose that they are now opposing their own product. 65. Govt prepared to fight against unjust assaults by Opposition, media, October 11, 2012 The Parliamentary recess is over and Government is fully prepared to resume the pursuance of its legislative agenda. Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that thus far, the Tenth Parliament has become an occasion for the most concentrated period of abandonment of established parliamentary practices and norms. Cabinet contends that this heresy has spawned consequences that are yet to be elucidated much less accommodated. The legislative practices are being subjected to arbitrary revision; existing legislation has been targeted for reforms and more pervasively, PPP/C MPs and Cabinet ministers have and are being singled out and assaulted unjustly in the media, the Cabinet Secretary lamented. He affirmed that Government is even more prepared than ever to face this struggle head on; noting that the conventions that surround parliamentary practices have, over the decades of parliamentary democracy, addressed all of the nuances of minority parliaments. He also mentioned that pronouncements on minority parliaments are included in all the systems that are in place to deal with parliamentary democracy.

94

When we speak about breaches, we are speaking about the totality parliamentary practices, which attend majoritarian and minority parliaments. I dont believe that we can conjure some notion of a tabula rasa that nothing has been written and that Trotman (Speaker) and Former Brigadier Granger and their ilk are not writing for the world, some prescription on how to deal with minority parliaments, he said. He lamented that Cabinet members have been subjected to a lot of unfair criticisms based on misadventures by Opposition elements and sections of the media; utterances which he said are going to be rehashed at some point when Parliament recommences from the same people and the same points of view. 66. Tenth Parliament lapsing, October 13, 2012 Given that the first session of the Tenth Parliament was characterised by budget cuts and contravention of established parliamentary rules and procedures; Guyanese are alert now more than ever and are eagerly waiting to see what will play out in the National Assembly now that the Parliamentary recess has come to an end. PPP/Cs Chief Whip and Presidential Advisor on Governance, Gail Teixeira said that Government is waiting to see if the Opposition will proceed with their old tactics or will come to a more rational and sober assessment of their role in the Parliament. If they are coming with their view of obstructing as they did in the last session, I do not know how much we will accomplish as a country in Parliament, Teixeira said. Government on the other hand, is prepared to forge ahead with several pieces of legislation that it hopes to pilot during this second session. These include amendments to the Sexual Offences Act to address a legal impediment, which has resulted in victims cases being stalled at the courts. Additionally, Government is committed to ensuring that work is expedited at the select committee that is dealing with the four local government bills so that the long-awaited Local Government elections can be held. These include: Fiscal Transfers Bill, Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Bill, Local Government (Amendment) Bill and the Local Government Commission Bill. The select committee that is dealing with the Resolution on commitments made to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the abolition of corporal punishment, the death penalty and the decriminalization of consensual adult same sex relations and discrimination against lesbians, gays, bi-sexual, and transgender persons will have the input of many people. She said that the Public Accounts Committee has not looked at the 2010 Auditor Generals report as yet and thus far, no public or State agency has been called to answer questions on the report. Meanwhile, the 2011 report has recently been submitted by the Auditor General, this means that the committee, which is chaired by APNU Member, Carl Greenidge, is lagging two years behind.
95

We re-scrutinised the auditor general reports to scrutinize the Government accountability and transparency and to be able to improve the way in which regions function and operate at a financial level within the state sector, Teixeira said. With regards to the sectoral committees, which serve as oversight bodies to Governments policies and performance, a chairperson is yet to be elected. The Chief Whip lamented that nine months has elapsed and none of the sectoral committees has been convened. She noted that if the Tenth Parliament continues its current trend, then it will be known as an ineffective Parliament compared to the Ninth Parliament, which saw the passage of over 100 Bills. We are very resolute, we have a developmental agenda and we have to keep powering through, she reaffirmed. 67. Clerks office Bill repugnant, unconstitutional, October 18, 2012

Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly postCabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that the Oppositions resolve to impose its one-seat majority in Parliament has and because of their uncompromising stance, it will continue to present room for discord. He said that the planned October 22 sitting of the National Assembly, which is the first since the recess officially ended on October 9, has presented an opportunity for the prevailing opposition rhetoric to be constructively addressed; however, the agenda as illustrated in the order paper, has clearly dashed all such hopes. The Speaker continues to ignore sound advice from more experienced current and former parliamentarians and other recognised authoritative sources. Items on the order paper further attest to his indulgence of the Opposition and his accommodation of their tactics and strategies, he lamented. Further, the Speaker is aware of Governments position on Oppositions proposed amendments to the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act and the Financial Management and Accountability Act (FMAA). With regards to the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill, which provides for the establishment and administration of an independent office of the Clerk, the HPS said that Government has comprehensively rejected this piece of legislation on every conceivable ground and the reasoning for this rejection was communicated to the Speaker. It is not unknown to the Speaker why this piece of legislation is obnoxious, unconstitutional, vile and repugnant. The Administration has signalled its objection to these Billsthe lack attention thereof to parliamentary norms and procedures remains an area for great controversy, the Cabinet Secretary stated. The Speaker has also been written to regarding their intentions on the membership and chairmanship of the parliamentary special select committees; particularly asking if Opposition MPs would chair these committees on the basis of their one-seat majority, even when Government Bills are referred to the said committees.
96

The answers, Dr. Luncheon said, are uncertain; adding that, the immediate past, the pre-recess period, is not reassuring and the current situation is beset with increasing uncertainty. The Speaker, Cabinet asserts should recall President Donald Ramotars most recent admonition about the provision of presidential assent to approve pieces of legislation from Parliament. 68. Concerns mount about Parliamentary norms ahead of Mondays resumption, October 19, 2012 Following the spate of strikes against Parliamentary democracy since President Donald Ramotar declared open the tenth session; there is a cloud of doubt that the October 22 resumption will be any different. Presidential Advisor on Governance and the Peoples Progressive Party/Civics (PPP/Cs) Chief Whip in the National Assembly Gail Teixeira in a live televised interview with Head of the Government Information Agency Neaz Subhan on the National Communications Network (NCN) believes that from all appearances there is likely to be a repeat of the arrogance and disdain demonstrated in the past. Speaking on the topic Expectations of the New Parliamentary Session, Teixeira described Guyanas legislature as the most reckless in history. She spoke with disappointment that the years of hard work time and effort put in to reform the constitution to allow the countrys august body to perpetuate parity between the opposition and the executive, while at the same time allowing the latter to carry out its agenda, has been shattered. The circumstances, which Teixeira labeled as very disappointing came about after the opposition political parties got a one seat majority in the parliament after the November 28, 2011 general elections. The ruling party won 32 seats in the National Assembly ahead of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) which captured 26 and seven seats respectively. The government has the single largest bloc of votes in the Parliament. The collaboration/cooperation between the AFC and APNU without it there is not one seat majority they can exercise that one seat majority when they can but they are not a combined allied opposition the only way they can have this power to be able to cut the budget and do a range of things is because of this fiction of a one seat majority, Teixeira said. The collaboration has in fact been used by the opposition in a rather vengeful manner, resulting in $21B slashed from the $192.6B National Budget for 2012 and rejection of allocation to key government sectors that threatened the livelihood of hundreds of employees. Key development projects that were poised to catapult Guyanas economy like the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project, the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) and the One Laptop Per Family (OLPF) were also denied budgetary allocations

97

as a result. Funding for the Customs Anti Narcotic Unit (CANU) and the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) were reduced to $1. The selection of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly from the opposition, modifications in proportional representation at the level of parliamentary committees and the fact that most of the committees, for which the opposition holds the chairmanship are dysfunctional, were bemoaned by Teixeira as contravention of parliamentary norms in the Commonwealth. The opposition are drunk with their one seat majority and they are so drunk mentally and psychologically that they are taking Parliament along the road of gridlock, Teixeira explained. When President Ramotar had opened the Tenth Parliament in February this year, he called for a mature approach those guards against gridlock, arguing that the absence of a quorum would not be in the best interest of the nation. Teixeira drew comparisons to the time when the PPP/C held the majority, opining that at no point was this advantage abused. It is respect for the constitution, respect for the standing orders, respect for what parliament is about and respect the fact that the opposition and government had to work together, Teixeira said. The PPP/C Chief Whip had written the Speaker concerning the discrepancies and reiterated the call for him not to overlook Parliamentary procedures. Teixeira said without him taking steps to redress the current situation Guyanas Parliament could turn into a laughing stock. 69. Opposition fails to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking in Parliament, October 22, 2012 The Parliamentary Opposition today played every trick in the book to prevent Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee from tabling the Firearms (Amendment) Bill for the first reading in the National Assembly, but to no avail. At this the first sitting of the National Assembly after the two-months recess, Leader of the Opposition, David Granger was the first to interrupt the tabling of the Bill; saying that they would not permit a member in whom they have no confidence to speak; making reference to the passage of a No-Confidence Motion against the Minister prior to the House going into recess. I urge that this House should not proceed with any matter by a member in whom no confidence has been expressed, Granger said. This position was fiercely debated by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall who said that Minister Rohee sits in the Parliament not as a result of the confidence of the National Assembly; but rather because he was elected by the people of Guyana and appointed by President Donald Ramotar as a Cabinet Minister in the Government.

98

It is not for this House to determine whether Minister Rohee should function as an elected member or not, it is a matter of the electorate of this country, the AG reminded. Subsequent to the passage of the No-confidence Motion against the Minister, Government moved the matter to the judiciary, and members of the Opposition are fully aware of this. The case is currently pending in the High Court. I urge this Assembly not to take any precipitous step and to act in a manner that would prejudice the proceedings. The letter and the spirit of the standing Orders of this Assembly must have due regard and deference to matters that are sub judice and must not take the position that can convey the impression that it is prejudging or acting contrary to a matter that is awaiting adjudication by the court, he said. The stance taken by the Opposition Leader was fully supported by Khemraj Ramjattan from the AFC, who noted that Motions (referring to the No-Confidence Motion) brought to the House, ought to be respected. APNUs Basil Williams said that the censuring of a member is permissible, however, his statement was rebutted by PPP/Cs Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, who explained that the Oppositions No-confidence Motion that was debated in the House called for the removal of the Minister; however, this differs from censuring. This does not necessarily come by way of a Motion, it goes through a process which the House has in its mechanisms of privileges and it has to be something that was done wrong in the House. So you cannot talk about censure of the Minister for something that you may think he did outside of the House, she explained. She reminded that Guyana has a Proportional Representation (PR) system in which the constitution clearly sets out the procedures on how a Minister should be appointed, as well as removed and reiterated that, you cannot censure a member of this House for anything you think he or she may have done outside of this Housethese are very glib things being said in this House which have no substance and no precedence in the Standing Orders. The Chief Whip also told the House that the Commission of Inquiry (COI) which was established to deal with some of these matters, have thus far found no evidence to support the allegations that were made against the Minister and maintained that one cannot remove a members right to due process. Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman was left in a quandary and admitted that he was seeking advice from a Senior Counsel on the matter and stated that he could not prevent the first reading of the Bill. After heated arguments and heckling from both sides, Minister Rohee tabled the Bill. It seeks to amend the Firearms Act to create a new offence of trafficking in firearms and ammunition. Government condemns Oppositions disregard of Speakers ruling
99

Government Members of Parliament today in no uncertain terms strongly condemned the Parliamentary Oppositions disregard for the ruling of the Speaker of the House that Minister Clement Rohee is allowed to perform his duties as Minister of Home Affairs in the National Assembly. After the Speaker announced his ruling this afternoon and Minister Rohee rose to make his presentation, the members of the Opposition benches prevented him from doing so on two occasions leading to the adjournment of the sitting until November 22. Leader of the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds stated that the Government side was heartened by the ruling since, it was what we had expected, and it was what our AG has been maintaining all the while. He added however, that in light of that ruling, it was expected that the Speaker would have acted under Standing Order 47, which gave him the right to order the Opposition members out of the Assembly for their breach and contempt of his ruling, and we believe that instead of adjourning the meeting altogether, he should have ordered them out of the assembly so that we could have continued with the business of the Government and the country. Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall reiterated that Government had been maintaining all along that there was no basis under the rules of the Assembly or under the Constitution for a no confidence motion to be brought against an individual Minister. He also reminded that Minister Rohee was constitutionally appointed by the President and is an elected member of the National Assembly. He stated that ignoring all these arguments by the Government led to the matter being taken to the courts and which is still pending. However, pointing to the Speakers decision to seek an outside legal opinion, he noted that this opinion agreed with the position taken by Government. AG Nandall said that the torpedoing of the Governments position by the opposition was repeated by the opposition regarding the Speakers ruling. He declared that they are violating the Constitution and taking the National Assembly down the path of anarchy by virtue of their one-seat majority. PPP/C Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira reminded that although the Court had ruled that the budget cuts were unconstitutional, the Opposition had also defied that and did not approve the Supplementary request to return the monies cut. She said that the total disrespect and disregard for the Speakers ruling is totally unacceptable. Pointing to the fact that the Speaker had tried to get the Chief Whip of the opposition Ms. Amna Ally to get her side of the House to allow the Minister to speak, she said that the act of the opposition to want to muzzle a member of parliament is an attack on his right to speak without chaos.

100

She also declared that the Opposition is now attempting to overthrow the Speaker by disregarding his ruling, since they did not allow him to do his job of keeping order. Ms. Teixeira echoed PM Hinds statement that while the Speaker had the authority to have them escorted out of the compound; he chose the milder form of treatment to deal with the Oppositions breach of the regulations by suspending the Sitting. She insisted that the Oppositions actions were a show of utter disrespect for the highest law of the land. Regarding the next Sitting of the Assembly and the attitude of the opposition, PM Hinds expressed the opinion that the Speaker should have the members who would disrupt the Sitting removed from the Parliament Chambers and escorted out of the compound. GovernmentS representatives also stated quite clearly that there was no likelihood of them moving ahead with Governments business in the House without Minister Rohees input. Additionally, Ms. Teixeira stated that the Parliament now had no capacity with the Standing Orders to deal with the issue. What has been ruled on has been ruled on, the Motion was passed, it was not binding. The Minister as a Member of Parliament has the right to speak, there is no other recourse. Further should all the Opposition members be put out of the Assembly, there would still be a quorum to continue. Ms. Teixeira confirmed Governments commitment to continue its legislative agenda as it sees fit and will not stand down any legislation brought by Minister Rohee to suit the whims of the opposition. PM Hinds gave the assurance of governments support that should the opposition continue to disregard the Speakers ruling and have to be removed, Speaker Trotman would have Governments full support. Meanwhile Minister Rohee expressed his gratitude to his colleagues for their continued support. He pointed out also that it was not the job of the AFC and APNU to declare noconfidence in him but the electorate when they voted, and his Cabinet colleagues who work with him. He also pointed to the fact that he has been vindicated of all the allegations made against him so far. The $90M theft, I have been cleared. The ability to function in the Assembly, I have been cleared and I am optimistic that when the report of the COI comes in I will again be cleared. 70. Motion on Independence of National Assembly not passed, October 23, 2012 A Motion laid before the National Assembly by Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan outlining steps to be undertaken to establish the independence and authority of the National Assembly failed to reach consensus in the National Assembly on Monday.

101

Three sets of voting, two on amendments presented by the Government side of the House and one by the Opposition saw calls of division which resulted in ties on all three occasions. The 31/31 votes led to the Speaker announcing that the amendments to the Motion were not carried. The Motion moved by Ramjattan stated that the recommendations of the Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly as contained in the Report of the Commonwealth Senior Parliamentary Staff Advisor (Sir Michael Davies Report) to the Guyana National Assembly, February, 2005, be examined by a Parliamentary Select Committee. The recommendations indicate that the National Assembly should be given much greater independence in respect of its own budget without interference from the Finance Ministry with respect to it being reduced. Additionally, the Clerk of the National Assembly should become the employer of all staff of the Parliament Office and that a larger Personnel Office should be established to carry out additional responsibilities. Further, the Motion recommended that out of the Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project Final Framework and Guidelines Report, Volume 2, that, Parliament should employ its own staff, and the Speaker should appoint the Clerk of the House after consultation with all parties. However, PPP/C MP, Dr. Leslie Ramsammy stated that Government had already signalled its acceptance of these recommendations in the 2005 Draft Poverty Reduction Report released on June 21, 2005. Dr. Ramsammy also pointed out that during the eighth Parliament Government, through a Special Select Committee chaired by himself, had considered the recommendations of the Davies report compiled during the seventh Parliament on the needs assessment of the Guyana Parliament. Additionally, the Committee had also considered the recommendations of the Bradford Report which was in two parts. He noted that the Committee had advised that those recommendations be adopted and referred the matters to a Parliamentary Management Committee, the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly to establish how these matters could be recommended and implemented. He stated that of the 87 recommendations made, 92% have been and are being fully implemented. However, the Government MP stated that the Second Select Committee in the ninth Parliament never completed its work. He posited that the Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC) needs to report to the House what it did with the recommendations before we go any further. Dr. Ramsammy concluded that a decision was made in the eighth Parliament that was now being revisited. Dr. Ramsammy proposed the Amendment to the Motion presented asking for the PMC, the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly who received those reports since the

102

eighth Parliament to now submit a report on the matter, indicating why the recommendations were not implemented. Government Chief Whip Gail Teixeira supported the call for the PMC to review the Parliamentary Special Select Committees final report to assess the status of the implementation of the agreed on recommendations with a view of following up on the implementation, and to submit a report to the House in a timely manner. AFC Leader Ramjatttan lamented the fact that after seven years some important recommendations have not been implemented. 71. Opposition using civil unrest as a justified tool against decision to retain Minister Rohee, October 24, 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon today disclosed that Government will be approaching the National Assembly for supplementary provisions for the security sector to meet expenditure as a result of the series of unplanned, unanticipated events that have taken place since the passage of budget 2012. This, he said, is necessary in the fulfillment of operations and implementation of security sector reform strategies. He noted that it would be interesting to see how this supplementary request will play out, given how the Opposition remains entrenched in an unprincipled position against the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee. These additional expenditures he said could not have conceivably been catered for in the budget. With regards to Parliament, Government is not surprised at the vehement disclaimers by both the APNU and the AFC about involvement in the orchestration of the October 11 Agricola unrest. He pointed out that the AFC was prepared to repeat its previous explanations of the unrest as a spontaneously erupted response to his (Dr. Luncheons) insensitive utterances during his press briefing. This disingenuous ploy continued despite the recent disclosures by Acting Police Commissioner, Leroy Brummel which highlighted that people who were not residents of Agricola were identified in the perpetuation of the events. The Opposition was unprepared and did not anticipate the instant rejection by Guyanese of all walks of life of that horrid display on October 11. The varied and disparate responses in the House by the Opposition parties both, of them, confirm this, the HPS said. Moreover, Cabinet continued to reject the unprincipled onslaught on Minister Rohee. The view was expressed that Opposition members were so extreme in their determination to challenge Rohees retention, that civil unrest and public disorder was used a justified tool. Cabinet felt that they would next be explaining to Guyanese, the absurdity of their planned starvation of the security sector of financing, which would be another major undertaking for the Ministry of Home Affairs, Dr. Luncheon said.
103

72. Oppositions attempts to obstruct Minister Rohee in Parliament an assault on democracy, October 25, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall on Wednesday evening stated that the Oppositions attempt to obstruct Minister Clement Rohee from performing his functions as Home Affairs Minister and as a Member of the Parliament is a violation of the Constitution and an assault on democracy. Unconstitutional and undemocratic In an interview with the Government Information Agency, Minister Nandlall pointed out that Minister Rohee was appointed by the President and assigned the responsibilities for the Ministry of Home Affairs in accordance with the Constitution. He reminded that Minister Rohee was an elected member of the National Assembly, therefore, legally and constitutionally only the President can remove him or prevent him from functioning in that capacity. It is completely unconstitutional and unlawful for the National Assembly to in any form or fashion attempt to remove him or to interfere with his ability to function, the Minister declared. The Minister explained that the Constitution outlines that Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected to the National Assembly by virtue of National Elections by the people of Guyana. Minister Rohee holds a seat in the Parliament by virtue of that process therefore, under the constitution and the law only the electorate or the leader of his political party can prevent him from sitting or functioning in that Parliament. No other functionary or authority can remove an elected member of the National Assembly or prevent him from carrying out his or her functions. The behavior of the Opposition in this regard is an assault on the democratic process and a rejection of the will of the Guyanese people, Minister Nandlall said. The only jurisdiction which the National Assembly has over an elected member is in respect of exercising certain disciplinary power in respect of a members conduct with and within the precincts, the Minster declared. No confidence motion precipitous in fact and law The Minister further explained that the objection premised on the no-confidence motion is wrong in principle and it is against the law for such a motion to have been passed against an elected MP in our constitutional construct. He has challenged the motion in court to find out whether it had any legal or binding effect. He has interpreted the Oppositions actions against Minister Rohee as a violation of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly since the issue was before the court and in deference, should not be addressed in the Assembly.

104

Examining the reason why the no-confidence motion was passed, Minister Nandlall said it was based on the contention that Minister Rohee passed instructions to the Police to shoot protestors in Linden. This conclusion by the Opposition was however, presumptuous and precipitous since both sides had committed to a Commission of Inquiry on the issue which would determine Minister Rohees involvement, if any. This no confidence motion was passed on the presumption of the culpability and involvement of Minister Rohee without any inquiry or any opportunity whatsoever being afforded to the Minister to be heard or offer a defence. Minister Nandlall stated that the ongoing Commission of Inquiry has seen days of presentation of evidence by the Police and witnesses called by the Opposition. None of the witnesses so far has said anything that can lead any tribunal to conclude that Minister Rohee had the slightest involvement in the Linden incident. There is not even a scintilla of evidence which would tend to establish any form of involvement, the Legal Affairs Minister said. In fact and to the contrary, the evidence rejects the notion that Minister Rohee was in some way involved in the incident. He pointed to the fact that the Police Commissioner and Commander Hickens both stated clearly that they did not receive any instructions from Minister Rohee. The contention of the Opposition lawyers that evidence of phone records would implicate the Minister was dashed when those records revealed that the communication occurred some two hours after the shooting took place. The evidence coming out of the Inquiry so far, cogently and consistently exculpates Minister Rohee from any sort of involvement in the Linden incident whatsoever. Therefore apart from the constitutional basis on which their actions ought to be denounced and democratic basis on which their actions ought to be condemned, you have the factual basis which clearly does not support or lend any form of credibility to their notion that he was involved. One cannot discount also the pronouncement which came from the Commission itself which says that there is no evidence, thus far, to require Mr. Rohee to present himself to the Commission. All of this clearly demonstrate that parliament by a majority of one, proceeded on a completely misconceived, factual and legal basis when they upheld the no confidence motion, the AG argued. The consequences Minister Rohee has responsibility for law and order and national security and the police are responsible for the maintenance of law and public order in the country, however, there has been a constant and concerted attack on the police as they seek to discharge their functions. They (police) were beaten assaulted and insulted by opposition elements as we saw in the Agricola incident. Then they are being condemned by politicians in the press. Their Minister is being ridiculed and being prevented from functioning in the Parliament. The Opposition has stated that they will not support any bill he presents or applications he
105

makes in the Parliament. Therefore, requests by the Minister to the National Assembly for much needed financial resources to inject into the police force will not be approved. So, on the one hand, the Opposition calls for reform and improvement in the police force and on the other hand they prevent resources being allocated to do so, the Legal Affairs Minister pointed out. The Minister concluded that there will be consequences. There will be a breakdown of law and order and there will be a rise of public disorder and criminality. This always ensues when the states apparatus of maintaining law and order is under siege. This is what is taking place. The Opposition is orchestrating this. They must be held responsible. 73. New polls no solution to parliamentary uncertainties , October 31, 2012

Opposition machinations, the Speakers counter-machinations and the Administrations resolute Parliamentary work have made the sittings of the National Assembly an exercise of great uncertainty and unbelievable spectacle, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon said today. He was at the time responding to a question regarding the extent to which Government would be willing to continue to entertain the situation; or whether the administration is getting closer to the point where going back to the polls would end the uncertainties. He explained that the two main constitutional tasks imposed on Parliament and the National Assembly, are Legislation and Oversight, and that it was these two areas which are enjoyed by the opposition, by way of the parliamentary configuration and the opposition one-seat majority. Dr. Luncheon stated further, that the way these tasks are handled and the resulting impact on legislation along with the oversight of the Executive and the way that is handled causes the generation of anxiety and uncertainty. He added that while there is no doubt that the one seat majority has cultivated the situation, I dont believe in the short term, that there is a broad acceptance that going to the election resolves that. The HPS posited that the issues address the format, rules, structure and procedures which are part and parcel of all the traditions of democratic parliamentary democracies. He stated that until those issues are resolved in a conventional way anxiety and uncertainty would persist. Dr. Luncheon suggested that not paying more attention to the conventions and norms of parliamentary operations along with the tri-polar nature of the current situation, governing party and the two opposition parties and the search for accommodation, would have an impact on the way in which the House addresses its fundamental responsibility of passing Legislation and dealing with the oversight of the Executive.

106

With respect to returning to the polls in the short term, Dr. Luncheon stated that during the period of preparations for elections, the same Parliament, with the same instability, would have now, the additional responsibility of grandfathering the preelectoral period. Pointing to the roles of Legislation and Oversight, Dr. Luncheon posited that in the short -term much more attention needs to be paid to grasping fundamentals, not fundamentals that we are going to originate; fundamentals that have been there, fundamentals that are being practiced in other Parliamentary democracies and being brought to bear successfully in dealing with national issues and Legislation dealing with oversight. The HPS stated emphatically, that the fundamental problem is that there will always be a Parliamentary majority, whether it was the opposition or the government. But what holds them together in a parliamentary democracy, is respect for the rules, respect for traditions. 74. Opposition fails to prove Minister Rohee culpable- AG, November 1, 2012 Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall has stated that the Alliance for Change (AFC) through Mr. Nigel Hughes, and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) through Mr. Basil Williams have collectively, and individually failed to prove any form of guilt on the part of the police or Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on the deaths and injuries of persons during the Linden protest. During a live discussion on the Linden Commission of Inquiry this evening on the National Communications Network (NCN), Minister Nandlall said, what they have managed to prove was that there were other persons who may have shot, and that there was wanton destruction of property. Hundreds of millions of dollars of state property was destroyed and several millions of dollars of private property was destroyed. Additionally, they produced evidence which could lead a tribunal to conclude that those people who were on the ground that day, did the destruction. Minister Nandlall pointed out that Head of State Donald Ramotar had committed to an inquiry into the happenings at Linden immediately after the persons were shot and killed, and the Commissioners were selected by both the Opposition and the Government. The contentions made were that the Minister of Home Affairs had ordered the Police to shoot the protestors at Linden on July 18. Minister Nandlall explained that the AFC subsequently introduced an independent overseas pathologist along with a ballistics expert whose findings did not support the
107

claims that were being made. Further, a tape introduced into evidence by Hughes himself, showed clearly that the protestors were not peaceful. The Legal Affairs Minister said that the subsequent declarations by the opposition lawyers that they had proof of Minister Rohees contact with the Police on the ground that would indicate that he did give the order, were not supported when the phone records produced clearly showed that contact was made between the Minister and Senior Superintendent Clifton Hickens more than two hours after the shootings occurred. Member of Parliament Manzoor Nadir during his input towards the discussion pointed to the unravelling of the agenda of the two opposition parties regarding the Linden situation. He observed that the issue first began just after APNU had agreed with Government on the raising of the electricity tariffs for Linden over a phased period. AFC strenuously objected and accused APNU of selling out the Lindeners. APNU backed down and said no to the increased tariffs. The protest followed with fatal results for three persons and a no-confidence motion was brought against Minister Rohee despite the fact that a Commission of Inquiry (COI) was to be convened. Meanwhile, as the COI got underway, the Police denied shooting the protestors and were supported by the findings of the opposition supplied independent ballistics expert who stated that the bullets did not come from the police weapons. Additionally, while Hughes spent most of his time cross-examining the police and witnesses provided by the opposition, he failed to create the nexus that Minister Rohee gave instructions to the Police to fire on the protestors. However, an implosion was created when Williams tried to establish that the Minister was in dereliction of his duty because he did not give such instructions. Minister Nandlall posited that the constant shifting of the focus continued until finally Hughes walked away from it all. He viewed the action by Hughes as preconceived, pointing out that Hughes withdrawal had begun and been indicated on the social networking site before he actually left the COI. The Legal Affairs Minister is of the opinion that Hughes wanted a way out after the oppositions failure to prove their point. Both Nadir and Minister Nandlall also pointed to the fact that after it was realised that the COI was not going their way, and that nothing presented supported the contentions of the opposition, a move is now being made to attack the integrity of the
108

Commissioners themselves; Commissioners who were chosen by the opposition themselves along with the Government. Nadir said that the issue has now become what the overwhelming majority of Guyanese people have seen and heard about the opposition and what they now think about the entire situation. Minister Nandlall concluded that based on what came out of the COI, it has already been established that the police did not fire those live rounds in Linden, and that the Minister did not give those orders. However, the question of compensation did come up. He pointed to the question presented to Williams by the Commission: Should the Commission decide that the police are not responsible for the happenings at Linden and by extension the State is not responsible who would then pay compensation? Williams responded stating that he never addressed his mind to that scenario since he believes that enough circumstantial evidence exists to implicate the police. He was reminded by the Commission that the COI would be the body that would determine that and not Williams. In this statement, Minister Nandlall observed that Williams himself admitted that there is no solid evidence and that it was all circumstantial. 75. Cabinet registers concern over upcoming sitting of National Assembly, November 8 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon today stated that recent reports about a Parliamentary delegations visit to the UK Commons had raised several issues at the level of Cabinet discussions on Tuesday. Dr. Luncheon reported that the delegation had solicited and had been provided with advice by the UK Commons on their handling of Parliamentary situations similar to those that currently affect the National Assembly of Guyana. On that basis, Dr. Luncheon reported to the media the issues raised. On the issue of the Presidents Pension Bill, he noted that tomorrows actions of the one seat majority may be instructive. Pensions and the right to pensions and the enjoyment of pensions are now protected. Even if it werent, there is a moral issue involved we have inherited and we have had no reason to amend or to alter the enjoyment of such benefits for as long as the law allows you to enjoy it. Dr. Luncheon pointed out that no other former President or Executive President during their retirement actually had to endureto face a parliamentary inspired coup to limit and to deny them the full enjoyment that the others have enjoyedthis is the perspective from which we see this matter. This is caprice, pure and simple, and who knows, maybe the next President may be allowed for as long as he lives, without any cap, to enjoy these self same benefits. If it is a Bill and particularly in the context in the administrations rejection, one ought not to be surprised were the President to act predictably.
109

Concern was also raised on whether the Opposition would persist with their Bills to which Government has provided clear, unambiguous and consistent notice of unacceptability. Pointing to the fact that the three Parliamentary political parties have agreed to resume meetings shortly, he stated that there was no specific extra Parliamentary engagement with the political parties on those Bills for which Government voiced clear and categorical objections, it was all conducted within the Chambers and these Bills, when they were put on the Notice Paper, or when Motions to have these introduced as Private Members Bills, objections were raised and continued as the Bills moved from Notice Paper to Order Paper. Dr. Luncheon reminded the media that, logic, the law, the Constitution and Parliamentary practice seem not to be prevailingI do recall recently mentioning at a press briefing and reiterating subsequently, what is the likely fate of Bills so comprehensively addressed by the Governing party were it to be brought to the attention of the President for assent. One concern was whether the Opposition would now act on its No Confidence Motion against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee. He noted that the Order Paper for Thursdays sitting includes Bills that would be personally piloted by the Minister. Another concern was whether the Opposition would use the one seat majority to elect opposition MPs to chair the Special Select Committees considering Government laid Bills and Motions, a number of which have been sent to Select Committees. 76. Speaker rules Rohee must stay Opposition ignores ruling, November 9, 2012 The joint Opposition in the National Assembly today refused to adhere to the ruling made by Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman that Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee cannot be removed as a Member of Parliament or as a Minister of Government by that body. Speaker Trotman during the previous Sitting of the Assembly had indicated that he would seek legal opinion regarding the Oppositions request to restrain the Minister from making any presentations in the House. The Government had declared at the No-Confidence Motion presented by the Opposition was not binding and Minister Rohee could only be removed by the Head of State who indicated that he would not do so. Speaker Trotman subsequently solicited two legal opinions from two eminent Counsels in Guyana: Senior Counsel Rex McKay who is currently representing the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentary party on this very issue; Mr. Stephen Fraser of Fraser and Yearwood Law firm. He also received an opinion from Ms. Ulele Burnham of the United Kingdom Bar regarding the High Court case filed by the Attorney General against the No Confidence Motion.

110

The two questions he specifically sought answers for from the legal officers were whether the President is obliged to act on a Motion adopted by the National Assembly and whether Minister Rohee could continue to perform his duties as Minister of Home Affairs in the National Assembly. The categorical and unequivocal opinion received was that the President is NOT constitutionally obliged to adhere to the motion, and similarly, the Minister is not restricted in performing the office of Minister of Home Affairs. The Speaker also stated that he could find no provision in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly to prevent Minister Rohee from fulfilling his duties as a Minister. As uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it is for me, I must stand on the side of the rule of law, Trotman stated firmly, adding that, the Speaker of the National Assembly of Guyana, I so rule, has no power to restrict or deny the right of the member, the Honourable Clement Rohee, Member of Parliament from speaking or fulfilling his Ministerial duties and responsibilities in so far as they relate to this House of Assembly. He then suggested that the Opposition should consider whether the no-confidence motion should be pursued or not. Despite the fact that Speaker Trotman confirmed the argument consistently presented by the Government Bench during the presentations by Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, all members of the Opposition benches began chanting Rohee must go, Rohee cant speak and banging the tables when the Minister rose to move the second reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill No 21/2012 tabled on September 4. As they drowned out the Minister, the Speaker left his chair and invited the Chief Whips of both sides of the House to meet with him in his Chambers. It was subsequently reported that the Opposition Chief Whip Ms. Amna Ally refused to request her colleagues to desist from their ruckus and allow the Minister to speak. The session was reconvened and as the Minister again rose, the ruckus intensified and this time the Speaker chose the alternative of suspending the National Assembly until November 22. 77. Government condemns Oppositions disregard of Speakers ruling, November 9, 2012 Government Members of Parliament today in no uncertain terms strongly condemned the Parliamentary Oppositions disregard for the ruling of the Speaker of the House that Minister Clement Rohee is allowed to perform his duties as Minister of Home Affairs in the National Assembly. After the Speaker announced his ruling this afternoon and Minister Rohee rose to make his presentation, the members of the Opposition benches prevented him from doing so on two occasions leading to the adjournment of the sitting until November 22.

111

Leader of the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds stated that the Government side was heartened by the ruling since, it was what we had expected, and it was what our AG has been maintaining all the while. He added, however, that in light of that ruling, it was expected that the Speaker would have acted under Standing Order 47, which gave him the right to order the Opposition members out of the Assembly for their breach and contempt of his ruling, and we believe that instead of adjourning the meeting altogether, he should have ordered them out of the assembly so that we could have continued with the business of the Government and the country. Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall reiterated that Government had been maintaining all along that there was no basis under the rules of the Assembly or under the Constitution for a no confidence motion to be brought against an individual Minister. He also reminded that Minister Rohee was constitutionally appointed by the President and is an elected member of the National Assembly. He stated that ignoring all these arguments by the Government led to the matter being taken to the courts and which is still pending. However, pointing to the Speakers decision to seek an outside legal opinion, he noted that this opinion agreed with the position taken by Government. AG Nandall said that the torpedoing of the Governments position by the opposition was repeated by the opposition regarding the Speakers ruling. He declared that they are violating the Constitution and taking the National Assembly down the path of anarchy by virtue of their one-seat majority. PPP/C Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira reminded that although the Court had ruled that the budget cuts were unconstitutional, the Opposition had also defied that and did not approve the Supplementary request to return the monies cut. She said that the total disrespect and disregard for the Speakers ruling is totally unacceptable. Pointing to the fact that the Speaker had tried to get the Chief Whip of the opposition Ms. Amna Ally to get her side of the House to allow the Minister to speak, she said that the act of the opposition to want to muzzle a member of parliament is an attack on his right to speak without chaos. She also declared that the Opposition is now attempting to overthrow the Speaker by disregarding his ruling, since they did not allow him to do his job of keeping order. Ms. Teixeira echoed PM Hinds statement that while the Speaker had the authority to have them escorted out of the compound; he chose the milder form of treatment to deal with the Oppositions breach of the regulations by suspending the Sitting. She insisted that the Oppositions actions were a show of utter disrespect for the highest law of the land. Regarding the next Sitting of the Assembly and the attitude of the opposition, PM Hinds expressed the opinion that the Speaker should have the members who would disrupt the Sitting removed from the Parliament Chambers and escorted out of the compound. Governments representatives also stated quite clearly that there was no likelihood of them moving ahead with Governments business in the House without Minister Rohees input. Additionally, Ms. Teixeira stated that the Parliament now had no capacity with

112

the Standing Orders to deal with the issue. What has been ruled on has been ruled on, the Motion was passed, it was not binding. The Minister as a Member of Parliament has the right to speak, there is no other recourse. Further should all the Opposition members be put out of the Assembly, there would still be a quorum to continue. Ms. Teixeira confirmed Governments commitment to continue its legislative agenda as it sees fit and will not stand down any legislation brought by Minister Rohee to suit the whims of the opposition. PM Hinds gave the assurance of governments support that should the opposition continue to disregard the Speakers ruling and have to be removed, Speaker Trotman would have Governments full support. Meanwhile Minister Rohee expressed his gratitude to his colleagues for their continued support. He pointed out also that it was not the job of the AFC and APNU to declare noconfidence in him but the electorate when they voted, and his Cabinet colleagues who work with him. He also pointed to the fact that he has been vindicated of all the allegations made against him so far. The $90M theft, I have been cleared. The ability to function in the Assembly, I have been cleared and I am optimistic that when the report of the COI comes in I will again be cleared. 78. Govt MPs condemn Opposition for disregard of Speakers ruling, November 10, 2012 Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall and Member of Parliament Odinga Lumumba have slammed the Opposition for their attempts to derail Governments work towards progress in nation building. Speaking on a live television broadcast on the National Communications Network on Thursday night, the two PPP/C MPs stated that the Oppositions action shows clearly that they have no vision about the future of Guyana and was an attempt to weaken the Government. AG Nandlall pointed to the fact that the Speaker ruled on Thursday that Minister Rohee had the right to speak in the National Assembly and that this was confirmed by lawyers retained by the Opposition and whose opinion was sought by the Speaker on this issue. He noted that the Oppositions disregard for the ruling of the Speaker points to anarchy. An Opposition Speakers ruling has been denied, Opposition lawyers opinions are being denied, and even their own most ardent and passionate supporters cannot support them in principle, even though they are fortunate enough to have a majority, was the view of Minister Nandlall. Lumumba, pointing out Governments work to build Guyana and improve the lives of citizens said that disobeying the Speaker is a naked attempt by the Opposition to destabilise the Government. He accused the Opposition of having no interest in the improvement of the economy and the various sectors that have been improved over the

113

years by the current Administration. He said that Oppositions action is not about Minister Rohee, but an attempt to slow down the economic progress of Guyana. Both speakers referred to the Oppositions attempt to saddle the Minister with the blame for the Linden situation in July, and also pointed out the hearings before the Commission of Inquiry did not support their claims. Lumumba insists that the Speaker had a duty to control the National Assembly and his failure to do so does not sit well since the Oppositions refusal to adhere to his ruling is a fundamental breach of Parliamentary procedure. He added that it was an attempt to seize power through Parliament. It is an attempt of a parliamentary coup by a Parliamentary Opposition who believes that a one-seat majority gives them the right to run government. He added that the Opposition is going beyond their role. Minister Nandlall stated that at the time the No Confidence Motion against Minister Rohee was brought to the Parliament in July, all the reasoned arguments advanced were rejected and the one-seat majority prevailed and they proceeded to pass the motion. The Speaker sought advice from three lawyers, Senior Counsel Rex McKay who is currently representing the APNU parliamentary party on this very issue and has been the Lawyer for the PNC for the past 40 years; Mr. Stephen Fraser of Fraser, Housty and Yearwood Law firm, (Mr. Fraser was on the list of candidates for the AFC in 2006) and also received an opinion from Ms. Ulele Burnham of the United Kingdom Bar, daughter of the late PNC President Forbes Burnham, regarding the High Court case filed by the AG against the No Confidence Motion. What cannot be discounted also, the AG pointed out, was the fact that the Speaker himself comes from the AFC and there was absolutely no input from the Government regarding the Speakers ruling as all opinions and advice came from the Opposition quarters. As such APNU and AFC have both defied the advice of their own lawyers, and the Speaker who is an AFC member, has had his ruling absolutely rejected by the Opposition. The AG reiterated that he was not surprised at the legal opinion, but was shocked at the Oppositions behaviour that was abhorrent, undemocratic and destabilising. The manner in which the Opposition prevented Minister Rohee from speaking less than two minutes after the Speakers ruling was very un-parliamentary behaviour, according to Lumumba. He expressed his personal disappointment with the Speaker, who according to the Standing Orders has the right to identify those who were disruptive and ask them to leave the chamber. He questioned why this was not done and also whether the same scenario would be played out each time Minister Rohee gets up to speak. This would mean that if the Speaker would continue in this vein it would appear .that there is an intention to prevent the Parliament from working. The Speaker has a responsibility to this country, the Parliament and the Government to ensure that the Governments work is carried out properly and, if there are divisive and disruptive elements in Parliament, he has the duty to identify them and ask them to leave the Chambers.
114

Lumumba paralleled his experience during a visit to the British Parliament where the Speaker who was a member of the governing party censured members of the Government Bench. Guyanas Oppositions current attitude and actions are a warning to the public of what to expect if the Opposition would ever become leaders of Guyana. AG Nandlall stated in no uncertain terms that the Speaker has lost control of the members of the Opposition parties stating that the behaviour of the joint Opposition was consistently most unreasonable and unlawful. He pointed to a press release by the Speaker after the CJs ruling on the Budget cuts that Government was causing a constitutional crisis. The AG had then responded that the constitutional crisis was emanating from the Opposition and the Speaker was presiding over it. The same situation applies regarding the No Confidence Motion and the subsequent court case. AG Nandlall added that the population will judge whether these people have demonstrated whether they have the ability, the capacity, the maturity, the equilibrium the statesmanship which is required to run this country, since they are representing themselves as an alternative government without an economic blueprint to take the country forward, and displaying conduct that violates all the laws of parliament, rejecting their Speaker and their own legal advice, rejecting a Commission of Inquiry which they asked for, misled the people in Linden and behave worse when the consequences rear up. There is no longer any difference between the two parties, he declared. The Opposition Leader acknowledges there is nothing they can do about Minister Rohee, but will still continue to prevent him from functioning. 79. Parliament becoming stage for antics of extremists, the reckless, November 15, 2012 Government has resolved to continue to impose responsibilities on the Speaker to discharge his functions fearlessly in the National Assembly as the controversial Tenth Parliament has stumbled on yet another crossroad. Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing at the Office of the President today said that so obsessed with their motives is the APNU-AFC Parliamentary Opposition that they threw out caution and compromise to challenged the authority of the House. However, this latest attempt to unseat Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee was proven unsuccessful. At the November 8 sitting of the National Assembly, Opposition members made a furor when the Home Affairs Minister took the floor to make his presentation during the second reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. As a result, the Speaker was forced to call an abrupt adjournment. Incomprehensively, threats explicit and otherwise have become part of their defiant utterances Cabinet stood firm on its position with regards
115

to Minister Rohees tenure; acknowledging and being reassured that the ever-widening range of support and justification of that stance of the administration had been and was being provided, the HPS said. He noted too, that the Opposition consolidates its incomprehensible position on their Rohee problematic on a daily basis and said that as a result of their senseless and politically suicidal note on this matter, the rest of Guyana stands bewildered and uncertain about what to expect next. Plot after plot, the Commission of Inquiry (COI), the high court rulings, the advice of senior counsels and public opinions, all the APNUAFC Opposition has ignored and has failed to move forward one inch with their antiRohee antics and design; like addicts they seem to prefer to ignominy of alienating Guyanese, why? he said. Responding to the recent announcement of the Oppositions intention to table a new Motion to muzzle the Minister from speaking in Parliament, Dr. Luncheon reiterated the Administrations position to hold the Speaker responsible; noting that, so far he has done all the things that are necessary, he consulted, he has gotten good advice, we need him to continue to act in a manner that is fit and proper. He concluded that the sittings of the National Assembly are becoming the stage for the antics of the extreme and the reckless and not the House of compromise; adding that the next sitting scheduled for November 22, leaves much for conjecture. 80. No parliamentary opposition move can constitutionally gag Minister Rohee AG, November 20, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall today clearly indicated that no action by the Parliamentary Opposition can legally and constitutionally put paid to Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee speaking in the National Assembly. During a television interview on the National Communications Network (NCN) with its editor Edward Layne, the AG reviewed the previous attempts by the opposition to do this via a no-confidence motion, and the use of the one seat majority with the numerical strength which prevailed against reason and principle which was passed. Minister Nandlall then alluded to the fact that the law, the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, together compels Minister Rohee to perform his functions as Minister, and his functions in the National Assembly. He added that there is nothing in law, and in the Constitution which would empower the Speaker of the House to prohibit Minister Rohee from speaking. The AG also pointed to the fact that the Speaker sought and obtained two legal opinions from Mr. Rex McKay, S.C., and from Mr. Stephen Fraser, Attorney-at-Law, and that both of those opinions coincided with the arguments presented by the AG from the time the no confidence motion was presented to the Parliament three months ago. He explained that the Speaker gave a written ruling and he captured the legal opinions
116

within. The questions: whether the President of Guyana is obliged to act on a motion adopted by the National Assembly, and whether Minister Rohee could continue to perform his duties as Minister of Home Affairs in the National Assembly were answered in the Speakers ruling that follows. I can find no provision within in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, the Constitution and the laws of Guyana which restrains an elected member from fulfilling his functions as a Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana in the National Assembly. As uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it is for me to make a ruling in this instance, I must stand by the side of the rule of law and applying my own deliberate judgment and adopting the opinion of Counsel, I find in the absence of a resolution in this august Assembly which specifically sanctions the minister and direct that he be restrained from speaking in any or more capacities, I am by law, duty bound to rule that he must be allowed to speak, the Speaker ruled. AG Nandlall also pointed to the Speakers ruling citing a case emanating out of Dominica that, the customs, practices and conventions of the UK House of Commons as applying to no confidence motions and resolutions do not as a matter of course apply to Guyana. Nandlall emphasised that the Speaker ruled that the practices and conventions of the United Kingdom parliament do not apply to Guyana, based on the advice he has received. This was exactly what he (Nandlall) had previously articulated. When the Speaker made that ruling, what the members of the National Assembly did, as Minister Rohee attempted to present a Bill they started to make a lot of noise in the Assembly, they shouted and banged on the desks, saying Rohee must go. They were very loud, drowning out Minister Rohees voice, in complete disregard for the Speakers ruling, and in an attempt to clearly undermine the authority of the Chair in the National Assembly. As a result the Speaker got up and walked out of the Assembly, the AG recalled. Parliament, the AG said has similar power as the court to find persons in contempt and explained that disrespect in the face of the parliament constitutes conduct which the Speaker is witnessing himself, which makes it impossible for the Parliament to function, which would bring into disrepute the integrity of the institution of that august body. When those acts are committed, the presiding officer, the Speaker of the National Assembly has an inherent power to maintain order and to maintain decorum, rectitude, and maintaining the integrity of the tribunal, the law invests that Officer with the power to punish for contempt. There it is the joint opposition has displayed contempt in the face of the Parliament by defying the Speakers ruling the first thing, and then disregarding the Speakers order for them to restore order in the Assembly. The Speaker also fell into irreversible error during his decision when he said that it was uncomfortable and unpleasant for him to make the ruling. The Attorney General noted that a Speaker is an impartial person even though he may be the consequence of a partial political process which Mr. Raphael Trotman has come
117

though. When he assumes the Chair, aesthetical as it is, he is to unmask that political garbhe has to be an impartial adjudicator of the National Assemblybecause he has to listen to arguments on both sides and rule, not because of political partisanship, but because of principles, because of the law, because of the Standing Orders, because of the Constitution, those are the guiding principles, not political affinity. Therefore it is incumbent and imperative that he remains politically aloof, Nandlall stated. The AG then pointed to the second statement made by the Speaker at the end of his ruling, where he proceeded inexplicably to advise the joint opposition to bring a substantive motion to gag Minister Rohee. That I understand is what he is inviting them to do. But when you examine what his ruling says, you will find that he has placed himself in a conundrum from which it is impossible for him to extricate himself and that conundrum is this, he is saying: I can find no provision within in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, the Constitution and the laws of Guyana which restrains an elected member from fulfilling his functions, he can find none, he goes on to state again, in the circumstances and having regard to the foregoing as Speaker of the National Assembly I have no power to restrict or deny the Hon. member Clement Rohee from speaking or in any way fulfilling his ministerial duties and responsibilities in so far as they relate to this House. Nandlall said these are absolute positions, and cannot disintegrate with a substantive motion coming before the Assembly to stop the Minister from speaking, because the Speaker is saying unconditionally, unequivocally, unambiguously, that he has no power, he can find no provision in the law, in the standing order in the Constitution, which would allow him, individually or cumulatively, to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking. No Motion can change the standing order, the Constitution, the laws of the country; if the laws in their current formulation cannot invest you with the power how can a motion invest you with the power? the AG questioned. A substantive motion, to stop the Minister from speaking will continue to be an impotent exercise, the AG stated as he has done no wrong in the Assembly. Its a two-pronged argument; one you have no power in the first place, secondly, he has done no wrong within the precincts of the Assembly. All they are saying is that he is incompetent, for all you know with the present construct of the law, it would appear as though a Member of Parliament or a Minister of the Government can be incompetent and not be removed in the National Assembly, the electorate has to remove him, the electorate has to remove the Government or remove the member, not the National Assembly, they didnt put him there. There are only two people in the National Assembly that can be removed by a process from within the Assembly, and they are the Speaker himself and the Leader of the Opposition, and that is because both of them are products of a process which began and ended in the National Assembly, the AG explained. Pointing out that while both the
118

Speaker and the Clerk could refuse to put the motion on the Order Paper, from the floor, using their numerical strength, the opposition can make an application for this motion to be heard, and the Speaker has the power to prevent it from happening. AG Nandlall also noted that it is not that the Parliament is not functioning, or the opposition is not functioning, they are functioning, but they are functioning in a manner to destabilise the government, in a manner to cause discord, public disorder in our country, they are unseating democratic traditions, and democratic institutions, and that is bad, that is horrendous. He pointed out that ministerial responsibility which is a feature of the British parliamentary system brought up by Alliance For Changes Leader Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan is within a system that is largely governed by conventions which are unwritten, and by which the British regulate their conduct in accordance. He also noted that ministerial responsibility has no configuration in Guyanas Constitution, but the entire Cabinet does. They are violating and disregarding all the laws, all the recognised procedures, all the democratic traditions and institutions, the Constitution. They disregard their own Speaker, their own lawyers and legal advice these behavioural traits and erratic kind of outbursts cannot be explained as logical. One has to conclude that something is wrong or they simply want elections, and they dont want to come out in front and say it, so they prefer to break up the whole thing and force us into a position to call elections, the AG concluded. 81. Parliament will be a testing of mettle PPPC MPs, November 21, 2012 Thursdays sitting of the National Assembly will be a test of Governments mettle and that of the Speaker of the National Assembly if the Parliamentary Opposition continues their flagrant disregard of his ruling that Minister Clemente Rohee must be allowed to function in the Assembly. In tonights edition of Inside Parliament aired on NCN Channel 11, Ministers Juan Edghill and Pauline Sukhai and PPP/C MP Manzoor Nadir together agreed that the first test in the next sitting would be whether the Speaker would find any way to remove Minister Clement Rohee from the House. MP Nadir said the first business of the House would be for the Opposition to introduce new mechanisms which would indicate that the Minister does not have the confidence of the Opposition, and reiterated the fact the Minister of Home Affairs can only be removed from the Assembly by the electorate or by the President who has publicly indicated that the Minister enjoys his confidence. Nadir stated clearly that the Parliamentary Opposition has no authority or legal basis to impose a motion as if it was a law of Guyana. Minister Juan Edghill stated that the no-confidence Motion should never have been allowed in the first place. Minister Edghill said the people of Guyana expect members of the National Assembly to behave in a manner which is reasonable, rational and responsible when representing them. He also noted that the anti-Roheeism is at the height where it now obstructs the business of the people. He stated that if the
119

Parliamentary Opposition continues to violate the ruling of the Speaker that Minister Rohee must be allowed to speak and function in the House. They would be denying the people of Guyana the right of having their business go forward. Minister Edghill pointed out that the Speaker ruled based on legal advice from outside of the Assembly and from the Clerk of National Assembly. Edghill added that while politics is politics, the business of the people of the country cannot be stalled. He pointed to the disregard of the advice given to the Opposition to withdraw the motion since the Commission of Inquiry had been established to determine the Ministers culpability in the Linden protestors shooting. But the opposition still went ahead with the Motion. He posited that the opposition is now finding it difficult to explain their actions to their supporters and are now seeking an exit strategy. We are hoping that a level of responsibility will surface. he said. Speaking about the Firearms Amendment Bill which comes up tomorrow, Minister Edghill stated that, It is almost lending support to criminal activities and criminal elements by preventing its passage. He declared that the Bill is aimed at strengthening law enforcement and to ensure the security of State. He posited the citizens security should be paramount on the mind of every legislator. You cannot take a personalityand you forget there is a bigger picture and an issue to be handled. He declared that the PPP/C members do not deal with personalities in the National Assembly but with issues. The MPs said the Government side of the House attends the National Assembly to debate issues and enact laws to ensure the policies are put in place to safeguard the people of Guyana. Declaring that ultimately the peoples business must proceed, Minister Edghill made a passionate appeal that this would happen in Parliament. Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai made it clear that the PPP/C won the National Elections in November 2011, and the anti-Rohee stance by the Opposition is part of the strategic plan by APNU and the AFC to seize power using different political machinations, therefore, while this is the current tactic being manoeuvered at the Parliamentary level, we must not forget that bigger picture. She noted that from the onset the Opposition has done several things through unParliamentary and unconstitutional activities including the disrespect and disregard for Parliamentary norms. She pointed to the falsifications of issues which allowed them to spearhead several protests which disrupted the lives of ordinary Guyanese on two occasions and hampering the main development thrust of the PPP/C administration and its plans for the development and modernisation of Guyana. The current Parliamentary issue, Minister Sukhai said, is just one small component of the move to disrupt the free flow of governance by the PPP/C Government. She added that the tactic of trying to expel Minister Rohee from the National Assembly through a no-confidence and the attempt to gag him is no surprise and is being used because of the Oppositions attempt to gain space to manoeuvre in order to regain the support that is falling off.
120

Pointing to the disregard of the Standing Orders, Minister Sukhai reminded of the move to change the composition of the Parliamentary Select Committees to outnumber the PPP/Cs majority which they were entitled to on those committees. She endorsed her colleagues sentiments that the next sitting will be a test for the PPP MPs, as well as the Speaker of the House with regard to his conduct of the proceedings and whether he would stand by his ruling and do the right thing. She noted also that it is expected that the Speaker would be independent and objective in his ruling. Nadir noted that all the Bills brought to the House are of extreme importance and pointed to several pieces of legislations that would accommodate and benefit tens of thousands of people. He posited that the hurdle to be overcome needs a great degree of responsibility. Nadir also noted that irresponsibility was shown when Minister Rohee was condemned before the evidence was presented. Nadir concluded that the entire episode is not really the issue of Minister Rohee, but was a test of the mettle of Government and to keep the business of getting ahead with the development and the prosperity of the people of country. Minster Edghill noted that mature approaches would move the peoples business and reiterated that Minister Rohee continues to enjoy the confidence of the PPP/C MPs and the President of Guyana, a sentiment echoed by Nadir who hoped that reasonable, rational means would prevail in the National Assembly. Minister Sukhai expressed the hope that the rules of the National Assembly would be used for the benefit of the people of Guyana and not for the political ends of any political party. 82. Prospects of constructive Parliamentary engagement uncertain, November 21, 2012 Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon at todays post-Cabinet media briefing said the prospects of a constructive engagement at tomorrows Sitting of the National Assembly is dogged by what is worse than uncertainty as he pointed to the events of the previous Sitting. The subsequent antics of the Parliamentary Opposition provides for an awesome backdrop, while perseverance is ordinarily considered a virtue, the Oppositions obsession with their anti-Roheeism defies comprehension, he declared. Dr. Luncheon said that the Opposition has promised Guyanese either a privileged motion against the Minister or an adjournment motion or one to suspend the Standing Order; and those options would join the main course of the Opposition in Parliament that deals with abuse of the Speaker, furniture banging and of course premature adjournments. He reiterated that the actions are all aimed at preventing Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee from speaking on Security Sector legislation which is currently before the House. The HPS stated clearly that another adjournment of the House will again delay consideration of those Bills and other Government Bills. Bills dealing with the
121

amendments to the Sexual Offences Act, Deeds and the Commercial Registry Act, Business names, etc. The HPS also noted that Guyanese would not be able to know the outcome of Opposition MP Carl Greenidges motion, the Opposition Bill on the Clerk of the National Assembly and others. This madness by the Opposition can go on and on indefinitely, he observed. Dr. Luncheon stated that the attempts to foist the responsibility for this situation on the Government and that it was conceived and perpetuated by the administration, defies logic and available information. The HPS said Government is not inclined to think that it has failed to do something that would correct and abort the situation. He said that those efforts that have been publicised and been made, point the way forward, correctly dealing with the situation, and were all ignored by the Opposition. This, he posited, should point to the source of the problem and clearly identify to whom should the responsibility of reversal termination and abandonment of this entire episode; at whose feet it should be laid. Certainly not the administrations, he declared. The last Sitting of the National Assembly saw the joint Parliamentary Opposition flagrantly disregard the ruling of the Speaker of the House that there was no law, either in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly that could prevent the Minister from performing his duties in the Assembly and therefore he must be allowed to speak. 83. Motion to gag Home Affairs Minister Rohee totally wrong, November 23, 2012 The Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) are just seeking to prove a point via their one seat majority and the events that unfolded in the House today were an effort through the back door to stymie governments work. These were sentiments expressed this evening by Government MPs. They were at the time speaking on the National Communications Networks Inside Parliament programme that saw the participation of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and Agriculture Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy. Some describe it an unprecedented move of House Speaker Raphael Trotman to have the gag motion against Minister Clement Rohee sent to the Privileges Committee for further discussions. This committee which was set up to address matters of parliamentarians who disrespect or offend the House or parliamentary Speaker is being asked to erroneously address the vagaries of the gag motion against Minister Rohee, according to the Prime Minister. They have no basis other than the fact that they have 33 seats and we have 32, the Prime Minister stated. He expressed his wish that with the next sitting due to take place on December 17, a speedy resolution to the issue is obtained as Minister Rohee is effectively barred from addressing any parliamentary sitting until it is resolved. Panelist Agriculture Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy said that it was a sad day for the country and its people, and challenged Alliance For Changes members Khemraj
122

Ramjattan and Moses Nagamootoo, in particular to ask their Berbice supporters if they voted for them to gag Rohee. He added that freedom of democracy is being threatened as even the House Speaker Trotman had stated quite clearly that only the President could remove the Home Affairs Minister from his post and questioned the reason for his (Speaker) sending of the issue to the Privileges Committee. It is the freedom of our country. That what we have struggled for and people have given their lives, this is what is at stake today, Minister Ramsammy stated. Also commenting was Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee who noted that his position on the current attempt by the Opposition MPs to sanction him was quite clear. Their initial motion to have me demit my post reached a dead end and now theyre attempting to usurp the power of President Ramotar, who is the only one with the power to remove me, he added. The Home Affairs Minister further said that what the Opposition was attempting to do was to take away his right to speak. He said that the Opposition MPs, having reached a stumbling block with their initial efforts to sanction him, are now attempting to say that he could stay in Parliament, but could not speak. The latest move to have his issue brought before the Privileges Committee was not fair as he was appointed Home Affairs Minister and opined that he serves the entire country not just PPP supporters. His reading of the Firearms Amendment Bill, which is aimed at combating arms smuggling, a key issue affecting the nation, was stymied by the Opposition MPs. This bill, Minister Rohee noted is being thwarted by a personal vendetta and the gag motion which seeks to prevent his reading of the bill, is a vengeful approach. Politically detrimental was how he described the action and called for compromise and dialogue to address many of the issues facing the security sector. According to Minister Rohee dialogue is needed not gagging. After several hours of debate and heckling, the Speaker today ruled that the Oppositions Motion to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly be sent to the Privileges Committee. The Speaker said that while the Motion moved by Opposition Leader was properly before the House, he submitted that he has misgivings about the due-process aspect. 84. Oppositions rejection of democratic traditions, Standing Orders height of illegality, unfairness, November 23, 2012 After hours of gruelling debate and heckling, Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman ruled that the Oppositions Motion to prevent Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly be referred to the Privileges Committee. The Speaker said that while the Motion moved by Opposition Leader, David Granger and seconded by AFCs Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan, was properly before the House; however, he submitted that he has misgivings about the due-process aspect. The Speakers rulings further stated that even though the House could issue sanctions on a member, that member has a right to be heard. Those of us who practice law know
123

that anyone and everyone who is accused of anything or who faces punitive sanction, has a right to be heard in his/her own defence, Trotman said. However, Government members have been consistently questioning the grounds on which the initial No Confidence Motion and the subsequent gag Motion were brought before the House; since the Minister did not, on any occasion, acted inappropriately in the House nor has the Commission of Inquiry (COI), which has been established to investigate the July 18 shootings in Linden, found any evidence to date, linking the Minister to that incident. The Speakers ruling further stated until the Privileges Committees report is completed and submitted to the House, any Bill brought to the House in the interim in Minister Rohees name will not be entertained. Height of Illegality, Unfairness Meanwhile, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall in a subsequent comment, maintained that the Oppositions Motion seeks to impose a sanction on Minister Rohee for an offence which he has not committed. In any system or any process that accords with civility that would be recognised by law whenever a penalty is to be imposed, an offence has to be committed and due process has to be extended. All of this is being thrown aside by what was proceeded with in the National Assembly, the AG lamented. He said that the arguments put forward by the Opposition were essentially that they have a majority of one, which they will use; turning a blind eye to all the democratic traditions, rule of law, the Constitution, and the standing Orders. He explained that the cumulative effect of these established parliamentary procedures allows for due-process to take place, and the Oppositions refusal to heed these said procedures speaks loudly of how they regard them. This, he said, is the height of illegality and an affront to fairness and natural justice. Privileges Committee With regards to the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee, Minister Nandlall said that this is only done when a wrong has been committed within the precincts of the National Assembly by a member of the House. In this case however, no evidence has been provided to indict Minister Rohee and as such he said that this aspect of the Speakers ruling is flawed. Moreover, the move to prohibit the Minister to bring any business to the National Assembly is an unlawful one. All of us sit in the National Assembly because we were elected to do so and as elected members of the House we have an obligation to discharge the business of the people. When the Speaker unilaterally imposes such a restriction on an elected member of the National Assembly, he is interfering with the right and freedom of that member to discharge his mandate and the will of the electorate is hereby frustrated, Minister Nandlall explained. Minister Rohee holds the responsibility for important institutions
124

such as the Guyana Police Force, Guyana Fire Service, and Guyana Prison Service among several other bodies which deal with public safety and security. The AG said if the Minister of this important sector is barred from executing his law duties, the effects can be detrimental in face of the crime situation that the country has been striving to tackle, especially with the holiday season fast approaching. Notably, the Privileges Committee is controlled by the Opposition since they have a majority representation in its composition. With this in mind, the AG said that his expectation of how the matter will be treated is not one that is positive, especially having regard to the Oppositions conduct in the National Assembly. I can safely presume that the same type of conduct and the same degree of unfairness will be transmitted to that Committee, he said. Firearms (Amendment) Bill This intended piece seeks to amend the Firearms Act to create a new offence of trafficking in firearms and ammunition. When passed, it will bring into force a law which allows for persons who are dealing with a quantity of firearms and ammunition to charge for an offence which hitherto does not exist in Guyana. The AG said that it would be a serious setback on the ability of the State to bring the type of legislation, which is required to deal with the changing nature of crime. 85. Speakers ruling contradictory and a travesty, November 24, 2012 Guyana on Thursday awaited the outcome of the sitting of the National Assembly to know whether Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee would have been sanctioned with a gag order or not, and while the issues arising out of the no-confidence motion brought against the Minister by the Opposition has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, the Minister was also sanctioned by the Speaker when he denied the Minister the right to table and to speak on legislation presented to the House in his name. This second part of the ruling by Speaker Raphael Trotman on Thursday was in direct contradiction of his initial decision on November 15, when he ruled that he, the Speaker, had no authority under the laws of Guyana, the Constitution of Guyana or the Standing Orders of the National Assembly to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking. Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, addressing the Speakers ruling on todays edition of Inside Parliament, a programme broadcast on the National Communications Network said the second remit of the Speakers ruling, prohibiting the Minister from presenting legislation in his name to the National Assembly is a violation of Article of 171 of the Constitution which states that any member of the National Assembly can bring any Bill to the House. I dont know where the Speaker has found that power to interfere and deny Minister Rohee a right guaranteed to him by Article 171 of the Constitution. He did not say on what basis he got that power, Minister Nandlall said.

125

A very strange state of affairs and a travesty whereby a member of the National Assembly who holds a ministerial portfolio cannot perform his functions by a ruling by the Speaker and that ruling, and sanction of prohibition was imposed though the Minister was not told what is the offence which he has committed, and secondly no due process was extended to the Minister, the AG stated. He pointed out that when the Assembly sits on Thursdays it is to conduct the business of Government, and that the Standing Orders had been previously modified to ensure that the Opposition benches were provided with a specific day each month on which to present their business. These regulations were established with the full involvement of the Opposition through a series of processes. However, the AG noted that during Thursdays sitting an intervention was made by Opposition MP Basil Williams to suspend all the Standing Orders and rearrange the agenda fixed for that days sitting in order to propel a Motion filed by the Opposition that same day. All Governments objections were overruled including the new Standing Orders and new precedents were set, Minister Nandlall said when the Speaker allowed the motion to be proceeded with. The AG objected when the Leader of the Opposition David Granger rose to move the Motion presented in his (Grangers) name, on the grounds that the issue of the noconfidence motion was before the courts and the current motion which sought to enforce it by gagging Minister Rohee should not have been allowed. AG Nandlall said he was unable to convince the Opposition benches that the freedom and powers of the Parliament were subject to constitutional supremacy, where the Constitution has created the Parliament and given it the powers of freedom subject to the articles of the Constitution. The AG noted that references to precedents in the British Parliament should take into consideration that it took place under a different legal system, subject to the caveat that you are dealing now with a Constitution that is supreme and that Britain has no Constitution and has a Parliament that is supreme. He posited that such precedents should be scrutinised to determine whether they satisfy the Constitutional supremacy doctrine of Guyana. The AG noted also that the Opposition could find no examples in the Caribbean and in countries which have a written Constitution which could support their case. However, he noted that the Opposition continued to place reliance on the British precedents and the case of Dr. Cheddi Jagan and Speaker Gajraj in 1965, notwithstanding the fact that the Jagan-Gajraj case came during the time when Guyana had a supreme Parliament and no Constitution, being a colony of Great Britain. The AG stated that AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan who cited the precedent failed abysmally to make that fundamental distinction. He highlighted Ramjattans statements which essentially said, the majority of one in this Parliament is supreme, they will do whatever they want, that the rules of natural justice and the rules of law do not apply to the Parliament, that they can overrule them by a majority of one, that the
126

Constitution does not apply to them because they have freedom in that Parliament and that they can use their numerical strength of a one-seat majority to essentially subvert the Constitution, reject the Constitution and they have that political will, and they claim that is what the people of Guyana voted them for.and the Court has no business to enquire what they do in Parliament. Reviewing the circumstances leading up to the initial no-confidence motion and its premature tabling with respect to the outcome of Governments commitment to a Commission of Inquiry on the Linden shooting deaths, the AG stated that the motion tabled Thursday is devoid of any factual or evidential basis and is being used to pass a no-confidence motion in the Minister who has been condemned for a wrong allegedly committed in Linden and not in the Assembly. He stated that the motion brought does not say the minister has no right to speak, only that the opposition has no confidence in him, thus the minister has a right to speak and a role to perform the duties the Constitution mandates him to. Minister Nandlall observed that while an MP is placed before the Committee of Privileges (only if he violates a privilege of the National Assembly), regarding the Speakers ruling of sending the issues arising out of the no-confidence motion to the committee, he said, the issue is inseparable and intricately entwined in a Member of Parliament and a person who holds responsibility for the Ministry of Home Affairs. So I dont see how you can send the issue without sending the member. Who will defend the issue? he questioned. The AG stated also that there was no invitation or opportunity presented by the Speaker for the Minister to say anything in his defence even though the Speaker himself, during his ruling, had indicated his deepest concern about due process before he proceeded to impose the prohibition on the Minister. Nandlall also pointed out that it is obvious with the Opposition majority in the Privileges Committee they will predictably gag Minister Rohee, completing the process begun by the Speaker. In the interim, whilst awaiting the outcome of the meeting of the Committee on the issue, the AG noted that you will have a Minister of Home Affairs who is essentially, wrongfully debarred from performing the functions of his office which the constitution permits him to do. The Legal Affairs Minister however, declared that there is nothing that the National Assembly could do in violation of the Constitution which could withstand legal scrutiny. Citing the case of the amendment of the Sexual Offences Act, the AG explained that the Amendment was tabled in response to the Chief Justices ruling that several sections were unconstitutional. This fact, the AG stated was the expression of the High Courts role as the sentinel of the Constitution which is over and above the sovereignty of Parliament. Pointing to Ramjattans statement of knocking off Ministers one by one, he posited that this is a subversion of the Constitution and could mean that the Opposition believes that they could pass a Motion and take a persons house and even dismiss the President.
127

The AG explained that the Oppositions constitutional role is to perform two functions: to scrutinise governments conduct to ensure it is acting within the confines of the law and the constitution, and not abusing the constitutional rights of the citizens and the power of government, and to examine governments spending of taxpayers dollars. They have to exercise that power in the National Assembly, the Committee of Supply and the Public Accounts Committee. He noted that in the height of the Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte administrations neither leader ever felt they had the right to dismiss a Member of Parliament. Nandlall reiterated that what transpired in the Parliament on Thursday was a complete travesty. The procedures were violated; the motion in the first place was in admissible, and not supposed to have been entertainedif you have a nullity from the beginning, everything that flows from it will be a nullity. The no-confidence was a nullity and everything consequent to it is a nullity, he concluded. 86. Govt to take steps to defend Minister Rohee, November 24, 2012 President Donald Ramotar today spoke out on APNU-AFCs actions in the Parliament using their one-seat majority, assuring in the coming days, that his Government will be taking the necessary steps in defence of Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee who has been at the receiving end of the joint Oppositions vendetta against the Administration. The Head of State noted that what played out at Thursdays sitting of the National Assembly was merely a continuation of what started with the advent of the so-called new dispensation, stating that the Opposition has clearly shown their undemocratic nature by dint of their actions in the House. He explained that in the first instance, an allegation was made against Minister Rohee which subsequently saw an agreement to set up a Commission of Inquiry (COI); however, before the said Commission completed its work and tendered its report, the unprincipled Opposition took to the National Assembly with a no-confidence motion; thereby showing their utter disregard for due process. Secondly, he explained that the Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman was advised by his own, independent legal advisor that the Parliament cannot prohibit the Minister from speaking or participating in parliamentary affairs. He then stated that the Speakers ruling to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, is not only a violation of parliamentary norms and Standing Orders, but is total disregard of the legal advice that was given to him, since the ruling has, in effect, gagged Minister Rohee. To take Minister Rohee before the Privileges Committee is totally wrong, to be taken before that Committee you have to commit an offence and Minister Rohee has committed no offence to be taken before that Committee, President Ramotar stressed. He lamented that all established principles continue to be trampled upon in the Parliament, emphasising that the Constitution is the instrument that has established the
128

Parliament, and should therefore be regarded as supreme, but the Opposition continue to disregard it and in the process they are demonstrating their callousness and disrespect for the rule of law and procedures. I am very surprised at the ruling of the Speaker, because he, despite his political affiliations, should be guided by the Constitution and the Standing Orders, and he has disregarded both of these important principles. He made a political ruling and had clearly sided with the Opposition. He added too, that a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty and thus far, Minister Rohee has done nothing wrong yet the Speaker proceeded to gag him; denying him a chance to defend himself and in so doing, presumed guilt on the Minister. 87. Referral to Privileges Committee is to legitimise a political act, November
24, 2012

Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee said that in so far as the APNU and AFC are concerned, the new dispensation is an opportunity to bring the Parliament of Guyana into disrepute and for them to resort to culture of the past, which is bullying their way in the National Assembly simply because they have a majority of one. In a situation like Parliament, if you have an advantage it doesnt mean that you should use that advantage to the detriment of national development, because the Parliament is there to advance national developmentthese people are leaders and leaders ought to demonstrate mature leadership, but they are behaving in a manner that will bring them into disrepute, the Minister said. He was at the time speaking during a television programme, Current Issues and Analysis. The Linden Issue Responding to the allegations that are made against him with regards to the July 18 shootings in Linden, the Minister said that all of those statements that have been made insinuating that he gave orders to shoot are politically judgmental and are not premised on hard evidence. He noted that when completed, the report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) will bear him out and indeed show that the misconceptions that were peddled about him were politically driven. It is almost impossible for me to give an order like that, thats an operational issue. A Minister of Home Affairs, irrespective of which part of the world he/she may be, is barred from giving those kinds of instructions to the police in a scenario like that, he explained. The Ministers mandate is to deal with policy issues and operational issues such as the one that was played out in Linden are left strictly up to the police. No Confidence Motion Referring to the much-talked about no confidence motion that the Opposition passed in the National Assembly against him, Minister Rohee said that it was all a sham and had absolutely nothing to do with him giving so-called instructions to the police to shoot at Lindeners. Instead, it was meant to raise the profile of then David Granger, now
129

Opposition Leader against the backdrop of the impending congress, so that he could win more votes. He added that this is the reason why there were so many inconsistencies along the way between attorneys Basil Williams and Nigel Hughes at the level of the COI. On the one hand Hughes was saying that you should not have acted and on the other hand, Williams was saying that you did not act the way you should have actedthis was an act in the form of a no confidence motion but had no firm groundings with the truth, he said. Notwithstanding all that has been going on, he is convinced that the Party, to which he belongs, is on the right path and as such it will continue to be the target of people who do not have the interest of this country at heart. He posited that, I do not feel despondent, I do not walk around as though I have a burden on my shoulders, I belong to a Party that is a fighting Partywe have always maintained that you have to get into Government and you have to struggle to stay in Government. Privileges Committee Minister Rohee said that a speaker is supposed to be impartial and is expected to protect the rights of a minority or any individual in a National Assembly. He added that gagging a Minister could never be the answer. He reminded that the Opposition has a majority in that Committee of Privileges and at the end of the day; the report from that Committee will be taken to the House with a majoritarian position and as such is not optimistic to say the least about this process. This is a move to legitimise by parliamentary imprimatur, a political actthe Speaker will say that I now have the views of the Privileges Committee which has been influenced by the majority, there will be a vote and again the majority will win and then the gag order will be debated and the majority will win and therefore they will say that due-process was followed, Minister Rohee stated. 88.Govt moves to High Court to quash Speakers Privileges Committee ruling, November 27, 2012 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall today moved to the High Court seeking to have Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotmans ruling prohibiting Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee from speaking in the Parliament and referring him to the Committee of Privileges declared, unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, in excess of and without jurisdiction, contrary to the rules of natural justice arbitrary, capricious, null and void and of no effect. The legal document stated that the Speaker, who is the second named respondent of the Motion has no power whatsoever under the Standing Orders, the Laws of Guyana, or the Constitution to impose a prohibition on a member of the National Assembly from speaking or performing the functions which devolve upon that member, either as a member or as a Minister thereof. In light of this, the Speakers ruling is without any
130

legal or factual base and therefore the Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine any issue remitted to it. The AG is also moving to have an Order setting aside, vacating, quashing or rescinding the decision and or ruling of the Speaker as well as any decision arising from the Privileges Committee since the referral is without any legal base. The joint Opposition (APNU and AFC) has initially filed a no confidence motion against Minister Rohee, which they used their one-seat majority to pass. They subsequently brought to the House another Motion to prevent the Minister from speaking. Their intention, which was disclosed at a public meeting on August 24 at Stabroek Market Square, is to suspend the Minister for a period of six months, if their no confidence motion was not adhered to. The AGs Motion to the court is also seeking to have an Order directing the Speaker to permit Minister Rohee to, not only perform his functions as an elected member of the National Assembly, but also as an appointed Minister of the Government of Guyana pursuant to the Constitution and the Laws of Guyana. 89. Opposition lost golden opportunity to work with Govt, November 28, 2012 One year ago today, Guyanese went to the polls in what was considered a closely contested elections that ended with Donald Ramotar being elected the President and making history as the first Head of State to be inducted under the new constitution that limits a President to two terms. The outcome saw a new dispensation in the country with the opposition parties combined, having a one seat majority over the 32 seats won by the ruling Peoples Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) for which President Ramotar is General Secretary. The one seat majority that the opposition got has made them somewhat intoxicated President Ramotar said in an interview with the media today. The selection of both the speaker and deputy speaker of the Parliament from the opposition and the committee of privileges under the opposition majority control were regarded by the government side of the House as assaults on the Parliament. The $192B National Budget of 2012 lost $20B when the opposition majority voted against key government programmes and agencies that were allocated funds including the Low Carbon Development Strategy, the One Laptop Per Family Programme the Office of the President and State Planning and the Customs Anti Narcotics Unit (CANU). The recent gag motion against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and Speaker Raphael Trotmans ruling to send the matter to the Privileges Committee were described as a violation of the Houses standing orders. President Ramotar who began his term in office initiating a three-party dialogue with the opposition, said in an interview that the opposition lost a golden opportunity to
131

work with the government. The Government wants to work with the opposition to move our country forward I think much more could have been accomplished had they not taken such a negative position in the Parliament itself by taking the speaker and the deputy speaker (positions), by trying to control every committee the hostility that they have taken is unbelievable, President Ramotar said. The President, who at the opening of the Tenth Parliament in February told Members of Parliament (MPs) that government will not be held ransom to intractable posturing, and had made clear his refusal to sign any opposition piloted legislation that is without governments input. Things turned ugly in late July when a protest against reform of the electricity tariff in Linden ended with three persons being killed, prolonged clashes between police and protestors and the mining town cutoff from access. Following a visit to the town by the President and meetings with the opposition and the Region Ten administration at the Office of the President, an independent Commission of Inquiry got under with highly qualified jurists from the Caribbean. There was the startling revelation by an overseas ballistics expert brought in by the Alliance for Change that the ammunition that killed the three protestors was not that of the police. Within 48 hours of his induction to office, President Ramotar installed a 20- member Cabinet that had 11 new faces and one new ministry responsible for Natural Resources and the Environment. He intervened when the local cricket fraternity was in jeopardy after discrepancies at the level of the Guyana Cricket Board lead to a court ruling for the government to get involved. An interim management committee led by former West Indies player Clive Lloyd was set up to manage the affairs of the game but its work was impeded by de-recognition claims by the GCB and the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) sidelining Guyana from hosting games. He was prompted to intervene after pirates attacked fishermen in the Pomeroon River. The incident caused a large group of fisherfolks from across the country to demand justice and security and a heightened policing of the riverine areas. He held to his promise of reviewing the tax system by appointing experts to a panel that will lead the review process and kept a close eye on developments in the oil exploration sector, visiting offshore operations in March. At the regional and international levels President Ramotar delivered debut addresses at the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Heads of Government meeting and the United Nations General Assembly. He told reporters today that the government has accelerated its infrastructure development agenda as promised in the PPP/C Manifesto. Among them are the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project, the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) expansion project, the Marriott Guyana Georgetown and the expansion of the four lane highway.

132

90. Govt rejects weird logic, disregard Parliament- HPS, November 30, 2012

for

Standing

Orders

in

Government has expressed its disapproval of Speaker Raphael Trotmans continued disregard for the Standing Orders which grows with each sitting of the House since the commencement of the Tenth Parliament. Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon at his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing said that the only thing that is certain as far as the Parliament is concerned, is the cloud of uncertainty that continues to prevail. The most gross was the Speakers ruling that the House could, would and did silence a member, Minister Rohee, while awaiting a decision by the same House to do so. In essence, even before the decision was made by the House to gag the Minister, the Speaker ruled that he be so gagged, the HPS stated. The HPS expressed little optimism for the next planned sitting of the House on December 17, in light of the weird logic that seems to be prevailing in the Tenth Parliament. He said that the next sitting that would have normally given precedence to the parliamentary minority ought to be given to address Governments business and noted that, the Speakers ruling over the first and second sessions of the Tenth Parliament has indeed upset the convention. Instead, the agenda for the next sitting has Opposition Motions and Bills that would be given precedence over Governments business, and will be debated and subjected to the Speakers ruling on their admissibility. These include: the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill and a Motion by APNU member, Carl Greenidge. Nevertheless, Government will be tabling supplementary papers as well as the longawaited Cricket Bill. The second reading of the Deeds Registry, Business Registration, and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bills may have to continue to await another sitting based on the uncertainty of Parliamentary proceedings. At the last sitting of the House, the Speaker ruled that the Oppositions Motion to prevent Minister Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly be referred to the Privileges Committee and that any Bill brought to the House in the interim by the said Minister will not be entertained. Notwithstanding this however, Government is fully prepared to participate in the deliberations. Notably, the PPP/C representation on that Committee includes Minister Rohee himself. A Motion has also been filed in the High Court by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall on November 27 to have the Speakers ruling declared, unlawful and unconstitutional since he has no power whatsoever under the Standing Orders, the Laws of Guyana, or the Constitution to impose a prohibition on a member of the National Assembly.

133