2012: Advancing the legislative agenda in a new dispensation 

The year 2012 was a very significant one for the legislature as it saw the commencement of the Tenth Parliament under a new PPP/C regime led by President Donald Ramotar.

This new Administration, despite serious challenges faced as a result of a one-seat majority and a now famous ‘new dispensation’, reinforced its commitment to ensuring that the laws remained relevant or were amended where necessary to meet the demands of a rapidly developing country.

Parliament Building, Brickdam, Georgetown

Reneging

The Tenth Parliament was convened on January 12; a sitting which set the precedence for the abandonment of established parliamentary norms and practices.

The coalition Opposition, the APNU and the AFC, joined forces to elect Raphael Trotman from the AFC as Speaker and Deborah Backer from the APNU as Deputy Speaker; blocking out completely, the Government of the day, which secured the majority of the seats.

This election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker was the first of a series of reneging on initial agreements that were made at the level of the tripartite arrangement.

After the PPP/C was declared the winner of the 2011 general and regional elections, President Ramotar reached out to the Parliamentary Opposition; initiating a tripartite approach in an effort to ensure that consensus is reached in the Tenth Parliament.

On February 10, President Ramotar made his inaugural speech to the House where he called for mature parliamentary behaviour and said that, “If we are to avoid gridlock and inertia, political cooperation in the interest of the development of Guyana must exist.  This is the reality that we face, we must avoid gridlock.   At this time given the significant development under the PPP/C, my administration would be loath to accept gridlock that can stymie Guyana’s development.”

President Donald Ramotar making his inaugural address to the Tenth Parliament of Guyana

Disproportionality

Shortly after, the Opposition used their one-seat majority to distort the proportionality of the mother of all committees, the Committee of Selection. Based on mathematical proportions and in keeping with the tradition of previous parliaments, the distribution of the 10 members in Government’s proposal would have seen five from the PPP/C, four from APNU and one from the AFC.

This proposal was shot down by the Opposition; instead the Committee of Selection is now made up of nine members: four from the PPP/C, four from APNU and one from the AFC.

This was in contravention of Standing Order 94:1, which states that every select committee shall be so constituted to ensure that as far as possible, the balance of Parties in the National Assembly is reflected in the committees.

Members of the Committee of Selection includes: Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Agriculture Minister, Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, Government Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, and PPP/C member Whip, Indra Chandarpal.  Opposition members include: Amna Ally, Joseph Harmon, Volda Lawrence, George Norton from the APNU and Khemraj Ramjattan from the AFC.

Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, who is also Leader of the House making a presentation in the Tenth Parliament

Budget Cuts

In March, Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh presented Guyana’s largest national budget to date, worth $192.8B under the theme: “Remaining on course, united in purpose, prosperity for all”.

During his presentation the Minister reminded the House that the new dispensation; whereby Government does not hold a majority, beckons the country into a new political epoch and heralds an opportunity for the nurturing of a new political culture.

For the Opposition, this new political epoch turned out to be one characterised by unjustified budget cuts.

During the budget debates, Government made every effort to reach out to the Opposition and to examine and consider the adjustments that they were proposing. Meetings were convened during which no less a person than President Ramotar himself engaged members of the political Opposition in discussions. This effort saw an increase in the old age pension to $10,000.

Further, Government had given a commitment to its continued availability to receive views from stakeholders including the Parliamentary Parties on the grounds that the matters to be discussed were documented and that the schedule for the consideration of the estimates was adhered to in its entirety.

When it was time to consider the estimates, the Opposition again joined forces to impose a $20B cut; leaving several Government agencies hanging inlimbo until Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall resorted to the High Court, which ruled that the cuts were constitutional.

The Chief Justice in his ruling, identified provisions in the constitution, which are available to the Minister of Finance and allow him to access monies from the consolidated and contingency funds, if in his opinion, there has been an insufficient allocation made to agencies to carry out Government services.

Members of the Government side during a press conference after one of the sittings

No Confidence Motion & Privileges Committee

In July, following the protest in Linden over electricity tariffs, which resulted in the death of three Lindeners, a No Confidence Motion against Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee was taken to the House by Opposition Leader, David Granger.

This Motion was passed despite the fact that an agreement was reached to have a Commission of Inquiry (COI), which was set up in accordance with the Terms of Reference (TORs) agreed upon by all Parties, to investigate the events leading up to the shootings.

The Opposition went further; demanding the resignation of Minister Rohee on the basis of presumed guilt that the three Lindeners were shot as a result of his direct order to police ranks who were on the ground at the time.

This Motion however, was a mere expression of the Opposition’s opinion and was, for all intents and purposes, impotent when it comes to removing from office a Minister, who was appointed by the President.

Not satisfied with the results yielded from the No Confidence Motion and adamant to target the security sector to score political mileage, the Opposition passed another Motion, this time to gag the Minister from speaking in Parliament.

This Motion, as unconstitutional and inadmissible as it was, was allowed by the Speaker, who referred the matter to the Privileges Committee.

Matters are referred to the Privileges Committee when a wrong has been committed within the precincts of the National Assembly by a member of the House. To date, no evidence to implicate the Minister has been brought forth, either at the level of the COI or by the Opposition themselves. As it stands, a sanction has been imposed on Minister Rohee for an offence which he has not committed.

APNU member, Vanessa Kissoon in a show of unparliamentary behaviour during one of the sittings of the Tenth Parliament

Government Bills

During the year, Government brought several Bills to the House; some were passed and some referred to select committees while others are still waiting to be debated.

• The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act was amended to provide for the renewal of motor vehicle licences on the anniversary of the date of registration of motor vehicles rather than the current system of issuing licences after their December 31 expiry date.
• The Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) was amended to require police officers who are responsible for the issuing of traffic tickets, to submit copies of such tickets to the Officer in Charge of the respective police stations and to the clerk of the court. It covers 36 offences for which traffic tickets are issued.
• The Civil Law (Rights of Persons in Common Law Union) Bill was passed into law to provide for the rights of persons in a common law union in intestate (dying without leaving a legal will) succession.
• The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was tabled. It provides that if a statement is written on behalf of a child, that child may make a mark in circumstances where the child cannot sign. It will also allow for the prosecution to have the right to lead evidence or submit written statements.

Other pieces of legislation include: the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Amendment Act, Official Gazette Act, Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill, Fiscal Transfers Bill, Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Bill, Local Government (Amendment) Bill,  Local Government Commission Bill, Business Names (Registration) (Amendment) Bill, Music and Dancing Licences (Amendment) Bill, Firearm (Amendment) Bill, Telecommunications Bill, Public Utilities Commission (Amendment) Bill and the Customs Duties Amendment Order which provides for the zero-rating of the value-added tax and the removal of customs duty on renewable energy devices.

Opposition Bills

The Opposition has brought several Bills before the House, which according to Government are unconstitutional and fundamentally flawed to say the least. These include: Office of the Clerk Bill, Presidents Benefit and Other Facilities (Amendment) Bill and the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMAA) (Amendment) Bill.

Hindering Development

The AFC Motion which sought to block public funding for the Marriott Hotel Project, was one such move aimed at hindering development. In Fact, from the inception, the project has been a matter of great controversy for the Opposition.

Their reasons for not wanting this development have varied from it not being economically viable, to insufficient information being made available as it regards the project, to the use of NICIL funds to finance the project.

However, Government holds strongly to the view that the Opposition’s move to block this national project is clearly politically driven and has nothing to do with lack of transparency and openness as they are claiming.

Government also questioned why the Opposition chose to bring a Motion to the House to challenge what they claim to be illegalities with regards to the Marriot project, when it is an established fact that Motions do not have any binding force on Government policies; instead of taking the matter to the courts.

Notwithstanding this Motion however, the project will move forward as scheduled; which once completed will create more than 250 jobs, generate income, and significantly boost Guyana’s capacity to become a high-end tourist destination.

Supplementary Financial Papers

During the consideration of supplementary financial papers under the new dispensation, the Government members were subjected to intense questioning; yet even after providing all the answers, the Opposition gave little or no support.

The Constitution provides for the Finance Minister to bring financial papers for consideration of the House to approve and supplementary expenditures to the annual authorised budgetary appropriation.

These approvals and or authorisations are usually granted particularly as the expenditures in most cases would have already been committed.

Normal parliamentary convention does not support leaving a charge on the Contingency Fund.

Given all that has occurred this year, it is clear that the so-called new dispensation has done nothing for the development of Guyana and its people. Government continues to lament the contravention of established parliamentary rules and procedures and has recently brought it to the attention to international community.