AG thrashes opposition’s branding of PPP/C as being an undemocratic and dictatorial- PPP/C did make provision for the No-Confidence Motion “It is important to remember that while the prorogation mechanism has been with us since Independence, the No-Confidence power, enjoyed by the Opposition, was only inserted in the Constitution, during the 1999-2000 Constitutional process. This process was engineered by and took place under the tenure of a PPP/C Administration, in our quest to enhance our democratic process and conferring greater power to our Parliament.” This incisive and pellucid declaration from Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, effectively nullifies any claim that the PPP/C Government, via President Donald Ramotar, is being undemocratic and dictatorial. The constitutional move, on November 10, by President Donald Ramotar to prorogue parliament, has now become the hub of senseless controversies, with most of it lacking tenable explanations, especially legal ones. The fact that the PNC régime was not amenable to a no-confidence provision clearly establishes its inherent undemocratic and dictatorial attitude, now so fraught among members of the Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership For National Unity (APNU), who is the blanket for the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA). The flip side of this is that the PPP/C comes over as magnanimous, in addition to be very much unlike its predecessor, the PNC. Putting aside this pivotal reality, the Guyana Constitution clearly provides for Prorogation of Parliament, and President Ramotar clearly functioned within his legal ambits: “Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred upon me by Article 70(1) of the Constitution, I do hereby prorogue the Tenth Parliament of Guyana on 10th day of November, Two thousand and Fourteen.” As per law, the proclamation was published in the Official Gazette, as is required under the General Clauses of the Laws of Guyana, Chapter 10: 0, Section 21. Surprise The AG encapsulated the sentiments of the learned as “undecipherable shock” since several lawyers are within the Parliamentary Opposition. He intoned that there must be other factors at work, explaining the wave of volatile and vitriolic outbursts that promise imminent violence. Speaking during a television programme, on the National Communications Network, titled “The 10th Parliament and the Way Forward,” AG Nandlall exhorted on the possibilities that the Joint Opposition may not have been prepared or they were unable to ascertain that prorogation would have been an option for Government. “Mr. Joe Harmon’s reference to the prorogation, rendering the opposition homeless, is most misleading. Prorogation is but a temporary suspension of the sittings of the National Assembly. Dissolution-that is, the termination in its entirety of the 10th Parliament, would have been the irreversible consequence of the No-Confidence Motion (this) being pursued by the opposition. So (ironically) it is the No-Confidence Motion that would have rendered the opposition figuratively homeless; not the prorogation,” Minister Nandlall firmly stated. Minister Nandlall also expounded on the Joint Opposition’s dogmatic mantra: “our way or no way.” With regards to dialogue with Government, Minister Nandlall described this opposition motif, as taking a most “unfortunate position.” He said however, that the population will judge for themselves, noting that stakeholder high-level meetings have been ongoing, and the call there is also for dialogue, and at the soonest possible time. According to Nandlall, this adamant aversion for dialogue betrays an important fact, where the opposition is concerned; it exposes the real nature of the leaders therein. “The people of Guyana have heard repeated pronouncements made by the opposition parties to the effect that they want dialogue, and that they are interested in building consensus and a harmonious relationship with the Government for the public good; that very public will now see an opposition who, when perhaps it matters the most, is rejecting dialogue and constructive engagements with the Government.” As for actual threats being made by the Political Opposition and their calls for protests, the Minister delineated a poignant difference where the PPP/C is concerned. “We acknowledged and recognised that as a constitutional and lawful power, which the Parliamentary Opposition enjoys, and of course we reserved our right as Government to respond by employing similar constitutional and lawful methods, and we have done so.” In this vein of respecting the Rule of Law/Governance by Constitution, Minister Nandlall said that the right of the opposition to voice disagreement with the action taken by the President (to prorogue the Parliament) must be accepted; however the very action taken by the Government is permissible by the very constitution, and that too must be equally respected, fully honoured and totally accepted. Benefits On the issue of the huge benefits of the prorogation, the minister highlighted some of the good and prudent possibilities that could be garnered in the immediate offing, as prorogation remains extant. “Constructive engagement and dialogue in an effort to find compromise are what the prorogation presents … every political leader should have these qualities, and (every leader) is now presented with a great opportunity to demonstrate them”. Nandlall evoked Australia and Canada; they have had prorogation by their leadership and they emerged as exemplars. Speaking of the impending protest, promised by the Joint Opposition, Minister Nandlall appealed for maturity and wisdom. He querried if demonstrating, though legal, is the best recourse at this crucial time, pointing to the fact that mayhem and chaos always leave massive losses, all of which could be avoided when dialogue is engaged in. “Dialogue is an essential cog in the democratic wheel. We have not even had an attempt to engage Government on the issue of dialogue,” he added. Learning from the past The Attorney-General rolled back history when he advocated for dialogue. This was occasioned with the Opposition Leader’s call on the security forces not to interfere with any peaceful protests. Nandlall recapped that that Brigadier (rtd.) David Granger served in the military, and he admitted to being a member of the then ruling PNC Party, who epitomised dictatorship for decades, prior to 1992. The statement made by the late PNC Leader Desmond Hoyte was also conjured up; Hoyte appealed to the race factor when he called on the security services to be cognisant that protestors were their “kith and kin.” “Why was this statement necessary in the first place?” the AG asked. “Over the last 20 years, our Administration has never attempted to interfere with our armed forces in the discharge of their duty. All we have demanded is that they act professionally, and demonstrate their allegiance to the Constitution which they took an oath to uphold.” Following President Ramotar’s decision to prorogue Parliament on Monday, November 10, there was a desperate attempt to gather protestors at the Parliament Buildings, but the strenuous effort proved futile, giving hint that the populace is not that enamoured with the opposition parties, especially when they seem bent on disruption. On the positive side, the AG went on and highlighted Guyana’s economic growth over the last nine years. He showed the many gains in various sectors, noting that “these are not propagandistic statistics.” He added that, “Where we are as a people (today) is the best that we have ever seen in this country”. The AG added that even though poverty is not totally eradicated, it is at a far lower level than what the Political Opposition is trying to get people to imagine. Persons are more concerned with their economic well-being, and have moved past the stage of public protests, he opined, further describing such actions as a “retrograde step.” “Unfortunately it would appear as though our people are ahead of the leaders. They have seen their lives improved. The protestors of 1997 now own their own homes; some of them have their own vehicles; some have jobs; some have businesses; and are now not prepared to engage in protest actions that can easily be avoided by their leaders, engaging the Government in dialogue.” “The Government’s door is always open for dialogue,” the Minister concluded, stating that whilst both sides had demands, action must be for the good of the country; for example, the need for the passage of the all-important Anti-Money Laundering Bill. The AG also reflected on the warning from the Joint Opposition that they would not support the upcoming National Budget. He explained that there was nothing new in this threat, as “They (did) cut the 2012 budget, the 2013 budget, and the 2014 budget, (even) when prorogation was not a factor in the political matrix. So I am not surprise; it obviously shows that the Political Opposition is not of the frame of mind to lead this country in the future,” the AG opined.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:49:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015