Guyana’s parliamentary democracy being subverted: The Opposition’s ‘dictatorship of one’

One year after the new parliamentary dispensation, the Government Information Agency (GINA) is releasing this document which was circulated to international and regional bodies.

The Government of Guyana’s Briefing to international and regional bodies on the post-November 28, 2011 general elections.

Introduction:

After the November 28, 2011, general and regional elections under the proportional representation system, the Peoples’ Progressive Party/Civic won the single largest bloc of votes and therefore in accordance with the Guyana Constitution formed the government with 32 seats; the two opposition parties, A Party for National Unity (A.P.N.U.) and the Alliance for Change (A.F.C.) won 26 and 7 seats respectively. The two opposition parties, therefore, have a combined one seat majority in the National Assembly. This is the first time in Guyana’s history that such a situation has occurred in the Legislature.

It should be noted that Guyana Constitution is based on a hybrid Republican-Westminster parliamentary system headed by an Executive President who also heads the Parliament but is not a sitting member of the National Assembly. The Parliament is comprised of the President, the Speaker, the Clerk and the National Assembly.

The National Assembly is made up of 65 Members of Parliament elected under a mixed proportional representation electoral system with 25 seats coming from the 10 Administrative Geographic Regions and 40 from National Top Up. Members of Parliament are named by the Representatives of the Lists of the political parties that have won seats in the National Assembly by way of formal notification to the Guyana Elections Commission. This system is clearly defined in the Constitution and in statutes.

The Prime Minister is the Leader of the House and Ministers of the Government must be Members of Parliament. The President, as provided for in the Constitution, may appoint an additional 4 technocratic non-voting Ministers and 2 non- voting Parliamentary Secretaries to the National Assembly.

The Leader of the Opposition is provided for in the Guyana Constitution and in statute and is elected by the non-governmental Members of Parliament.

The Constitution explicitly defines and provides for the division of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

The 1999-2001 broad-based Constitutional Reform Commission and the resulting constitutional reforms were unanimously agreed to by the parliamentary political parties through an extensive inclusive consultative process that included communities across the 10 Administrative Regions and civil society. This was then followed by an intensive parliamentary reform process (2002-2006) which created an expanded committee system and enhanced oversight of all facets of government supported by revised Standing Orders in both 2006 and 2011.

Most notable, and, in furtherance of the constitutional provisions, the National Assembly in 2007 by a majority vote of the government and the major opposition party passed an amendment to the Constitution which allows the Representative of the List of a political party to recall  their Member of National Assembly on prescribed grounds for such removal. In the case of the government side the President is the Representative of the List. 

Since the convening of the 10^th Parliament on January 12, 2012 by His Excellency President Donald Ramotar, the Guyana Constitution, parliamentary norms and conventions and the Standing Orders of the Guyana Parliament have been under constant threat by Opposition action taken as a result of their one seat majority. 

On November 22, 2012 the Government and thereby the Parliament was subjected to such violations of constitutionally provided human rights and the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders that the government has come to the conclusion that parliamentary democracy is being subverted.

The Government has taken note of the 2011 study of the Constitution Unit , The Institute for Government, the University College of London, on “Making Minority Government Work” which  outlined the basic powers that any democratically elected government, including a minority government, have in the Legislature:-

i) The government retains dominance of the parliamentary agenda based on the main rule that the “government business shall have precedence at every sitting “(Guyana Parliament 2011 Standing Orders 24 (2));

ii) Only government can propose additional expenditure and any amendments to bills with financial implications should be ruled inadmissible; (Guyana Parliament 2011 SO 25 and 53)

iii) Government has the sole right of initiative in relation to secondary legislation, orders and regulations and these are made by Ministers; (as prescribed by statute)

iv) Government can use its prerogative powers to create advisory and regulatory bodies, change machinery of government and make public appointments; (Guyana Constitution)

v) Control of the Budget will remain principally a matter for government; (Guyana Constitution)

vi)Power of dissolution /calling for election remains principally a matter for government;     (Guyana Constitution)

vii) Control of public bodies and public appointments principally a matter of government;  (Guyana Constitution)

viii) Government has control of the political, parliamentary and legislative agenda; (Guyana Constitution and SO 24) 

vix) Whilst opposition parties can influence government policy, Parliament cannot make policy or force the government to do anything against its will. Parliamentary motions can only be advisory. (Parliamentary convention)

Most of these powers outlined above are being unraveled, or, compromised by the “dictatorship of one” of the two opposition parties in the Guyana National Assembly.

Hence the Government has decided to document these disturbing developments for the attention of you and your organization.

Post 2011 elections developments in the National Assembly:

The President having been sworn in on December 3, 2011 and recognising the new dynamics in the National Assembly invited the leaders of the two opposition parliamentary parties to meet him on December 6, 2011. This gathering became known as the Inter-Parliamentary Parties Dialogue (IPPD) which in its initial meetings focused on trying to reach consensus on the election of the Speaker. Government’s efforts to reach agreement on the Speaker continued up to and within hours of the first sitting on January 12, 2012 but were unsuccessful.

Therefore from the very outset, the Government was challenged; this has continued unabated for the last 11 months of the 10^th Parliament.

Speaker and Deputy Speaker

The Speaker, Mr. Raphael Trotman (at the time Representative of the List and the then Leader of the Alliance for Change, A.F.C., the smallest party with 7 seats) and the Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Deborah Backer ( an Executive Member of A Party for National Unity, A.P.N.U., with 26 seats) were elected by majority from these two opposition parliamentary parties at the first sitting on January 12, 2012.

The Government’s motion of its nominee to the Speaker was defeated. Most interesting is that the government’s nominee for the Speaker was the former Speaker of the previous (9^th) Parliament, who both opposition parties had been repeatedly loud in praise of his stewardship.  

This break with normal traditional parliamentary convention in Guyana where government would name the Speaker and the Opposition would have the Deputy Speaker was the first indication that the opposition parties would use their one seat majority to achieve their parliamentary ambitions.

It is particularly noteworthy that the APNU/AFC Opposition conspiracy on the election of the Speaker has created an aberration where the Speakership is held by the smallest party in the House, the Deputy-Speakership by the second smallest party in the house, and the largest party in the House is excluded from both of these offices. The Government is of the view that this must be one of, if not, the only such situation in any Legislature in the world.

President’s Address to the National Assembly

The President addressed the National Assembly on February 10, 2012. The President’s Address was debated at the March 15, 2012 sitting where the APNU and AFC did not support the motion and abstained from voting. The motion to adopt the President’s Address was passed with a vote of 32 for.

Composition of Parliamentary Committees

At the February 10^th sitting, the members of the Standing Committee of Selection were nominated on the floor of the House by both government and opposition parties. The two opposition parties by motion reduced the size of the Committee from 10 members with the Speaker as chair to 9 with 4 for the government, and, 5 (4 APNU and 1 AFC) for the opposition with the Speaker as the Chair. This was voted on and adopted by majority vote of one.

Since then the accepted norms and practices of the Committee of Selection have been under attack and its function grossly compromised.

At the first meeting of the Committee of Selection chaired by the Speaker on February 24, 2012, the combined opposition parties used their majority on the Committee to establish new rules on the composition of the parliamentary committees.

The Parliamentary Opposition ruled based on what they called the “new dispensation in the National Assembly” that the Opposition would have the majority of seats on all committees and the number of seats on each committee, unless otherwise specified, would be reduced from 10 to 9 seats. They proposed a formula of 4-4-1 and voted by majority for 9 seats on all committees with 4 for the PPP/C (with 49.3% of the electorate), 4 for the A.P.N.U. ( with 40% of the electorate) and  1 for the A.F.C.( 10.3 % of the electorate).

The Government had also made a proposal at the meeting for parity on the committees based on the new situation in the National Assembly of 5 seats for the government and 5 seats for the combined opposition, 4 for A.P.N.U. and 1 for A.F.C.. The Government argued that its proposal was closer to the electoral results than the combined Opposition’s proposal. However, this was rejected. With that, by vote of a majority, the Government’s representation on all committees which the Standing Orders provided for “no less than 6 no more than 10 members” was now reduced to a minority.

In fact, the combined opposition parties now have disproportional representation on the 9 member committees of 54 % which they neither individually (40% APNU with 26 seats and 10% AFC with 7 seats) nor collectively attained at the polls and the government has 40 % of the representation on the committees which is below its 49.2% of the polls.

By way of correspondence to the Speaker, the Government asked that the March 2, 2012 meeting to elect the chairs of the standing committees be postponed pending the outcome of the discussions at the level of the Inter-Parliamentary Party Dialogue (IPPD) between the President and the leaders of the opposition parties.

The Government further documented its concerns to the Speaker on March 6, 2012. On March 7, 2012, the Committee of Selection continued to nominate members to sit on the remaining committees.

On March 13, 2012 the Speaker proceeded to hold the first meeting of the appointed committees to elect the chairpersons which other than those chaired by the Speaker became controlled by the A.P.N.U., the major opposition party.

The Speaker as the Chairperson accepted the Parliamentary Opposition’s position of having the numerical majority on the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Guyana Branch.

As per norm the Opposition chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee was continued.

The Standing Orders, in consonance with the concept of inclusionary democracy provided for in the Constitution, explicitly state that there will be parity in the Parliamentary Management Committee chaired by the Speaker. It goes so far as to state that there must be in attendance a minimum of 2 members each from the Government and Opposition in order to proceed with the business of a meeting.

The constitutionally created four (4) Parliamentary Standing Sectoral Committees as provided for in the Guyana Constitution and described in the Standing Orders have a 4:3 distribution of seats in favour of the governing party and chairpersons that rotated annually between the government and opposition. Each side has one non-voting alternate. These 4 sectoral committees play a critical oversight role on the performance of government in the economy, social services, natural resources and foreign services. In the 9^th Parliament these committees functioned and summoned the Prime Minister, Ministers and state agencies before them as well as made site visits to government projects and agencies.

At the March 30, 2012 sitting, two A.P.N.U. Members of Parliament tabled motions to the National Assembly which sought to revise the relevant Standing Orders to provide the opposition with a majority in the membership of the Parliamentary Management Committee and the 4 Sectoral Committees. These motions were sent to the Standing Orders Committee.

The Government approached the High Court for a legal interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders with regard to the composition of the parliamentary committees to reflect as far as possible the “balance of parties in the National Assembly “.The Court did not rule in the Government’s favour.

On October 18, 2012, the Government wrote the Speaker prior to the meeting of the Committee of Selection scheduled for the same day to propose the principle that government bills to be considered in Special Select Committees should have committees based on parity and under the government side’s chairmanship.

At that meeting of the Committee of Selection, both the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. members rejected the government’s proposal and stated that the issue of the composition of committees had already been decided at 4:4:1. The 5 newly appointed special select committees, including those working on government bills, were then appointed and by majority opposition controlled. November 28, 2012 has been set for the election of the chairs of some of these committees.

There are 22 committees constituted - 8 chaired by the Speaker; 5 chaired by the A.P.N.U.; 5 special select committees pending the election of the chairpersons. The 4 sectoral committees have not elected their chairpersons pending the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee to the National Assembly and its decision.

It is important to point out that although the Speaker and or the A.P.N.U. now control the chairmanship of all the parliamentary committees, few are functioning.

The Public Accounts Committee only commenced summoning government agencies to answer with regard to the Auditor General’s 2010 Public Accounts Report in October 2012. In the meantime the Auditor General’s 2011 Public Accounts Report was tabled in the House.

The constitutionally provided Committee to Appoint Members to the Service Commissions and the 4 Rights Commissions only held its first meeting on November 21, 2012.

The Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by the Leader of the Opposition has met twice.

Setting the date of Sittings of the House

The time honoured parliamentary practice and Standing Orders’ provisions allow the Government to independently set the date for sittings. This has been overturned.

The Opposition on March 15, 2012 voted down the Prime Minister when he set a date for the next sitting and a motion tabled and seconded by the A.P.N.U. MPs named a different date for the next sitting. Since then, dates for sittings of the National Assembly now have to be negotiated between the Chief Whips or receive their concurrence.

Government Business

In the first and second session of the 10^th Parliament, the Government has brought 24 bills to date. Nine (9) were passed and assented; 1 Supplementary Financial Paper was defeated; An Appropriation Bill for the 2012 Budget was passed as amended with a GY $20 B cut and assented; the second Supplementary Appropriation Bill was passed as amended and assented; 5 government bills have been sent to 2 Parliamentary Special Select Committees, some since July 30, 2012, and awaiting the election of the chairpersons; 5 government bills are waiting on the Order Paper, some since October 22 2012, and cannot be heard due to the developments in the National Assembly on November 8^th and 22^nd, 2012. Two have been deferred by the government following further discussion with stakeholders.  

Financial Papers

The Constitution provides for the Finance Minister to bring financial papers for consideration of the House to approve and supplementary expenditures to the annual authorized budgetary appropriation. These approvals and or authorizations are usually granted particularly as the expenditures in most cases would have already been committed.

As provided for by the Constitution, the Minister of Finance is allowed to utilise monies from the Contingency Fund in certain prescribed circumstances including between the period of dissolution of the Parliament for elections and its reconvening and is required to bring these Supplementary Financial Papers (SPs) as soon as the National Assembly is reconstituted.

The Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, tabled 2 Supplementary Financial Papers (SPs) on February 10, 2012. On February 16, 2012, during the debate on these SPs the A.P.N.U and the A.F.C. withheld approval or negativized a number of sub-heads on one of the papers, thus leaving a charge of GY $79 M unauthorized. More interesting is that the Opposition parties did not submit to the normal procedures required to bring amendments to these SPs. Despite efforts by the Government in writing to Speaker and on the floor of the House, the Speaker allowed these actions to proceed.

Normal parliamentary convention does not support leaving a charge on the Contingency Fund. One SP was passed as amended. The second paper, was postponed after a motion by 2 A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. Members to withdraw the paper, was put in abeyance by the Speaker.

The Speaker declared at the end of the sitting, that he would allow the Minister to return to the House with another SP for the items where expenditure was not authorized.

 At the March 15, 2012 sitting, the Speaker in response to the Government’s protests about the treatment of the first SP not being in order by parliamentary convention and norms, ruled that the treatment of the first paper despite leaving a charge of the Contingency Funds was in order. The second paper was passed by 31 for, 26 opposed and 7 declined to vote.

The Minister of Finance then returned to the National Assembly on June 14, 2012 to address the outstanding charge of $79 M by way of a Supplementary Financial Paper and after much wrangling and procedural arguments, the Speaker allowed the SP to be again considered and again not approved.

IPPD
In the interim, the IPPD under the chairmanship of the President continued to meet and decided to establish a number of sub-committees to address issues of governance. These were sub-committees on Governance, Constitution and Parliament, and economic issues and the Budget. In contrast to the parliamentary committees, each party had equal representation. These sub-committees met with little success and plenary meetings were harder to organize. The Government has separately documented its efforts to convene plenary meetings and follow up meetings of the sub-committees. 

2012 Budget

The 2012 Budget was read by the Minister of Finance, Hon. Dr. Ashni Singh, on March 30, 2012. The general debate began on April 10, 2012.

As the general debate was drawing to an end and on the eve of the debate on the Estimates, the   

           A.F.C. MP Ramjattan and the A.P.N.U. MP Carl Greenidge brought motions on the night of April 17^th, to cut the Budget Sub-Heads for the employment of contracted workers in the Office of the President, the Ministries of Education, Housing and Water, Health, Labour, Human Services and Social Security. The following day, April 18, 500 public servants including staff from the Parliament Office held peaceful pickets in front of the Parliament Building against the proposed cuts by the opposition.  These motions were withdrawn at the April 18^th sitting.      

A question without notice to the Minister of Finance by an A.P.N.U. Member of Parliament at the same April 17, 2012 sitting, sought to know whether the Government would be prepared to meet with the A.P.N.U. with regard to the 2012 Budget, the Minister replied that the Government would be willing to meet once the Opposition made available in writing the list of issues it wished to discuss.

The Government of Guyana (GoG) headed by the President with his delegation and the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) and Leader of the A Partnership for National Unity, A.P.N.U., Mr. David Granger, with his delegation held meetings from April 18-24, 2012 to try to reach agreement on the 11 issues raised by the LOP in order to reach agreement on 2012 Budget. The then A.F.C. leader, Mr. Ramjattan, refused at first to be part of the talks and eventually joined the meetings on April 23, 2012.

At the first meeting convened on April 18, 2012, the Government agreed to the A.P.N.U.’s proposal for an increase of the monthly rates of the universal non-contributory Old Age Pension. The Government’s caveat to the agreement was that it would expect the A.P.N.U. to support the additional charge of over GY$1 Billion on the Budget. On the said day, the Minister of Finance announced the increase at the sitting of the National Assembly.

Agreement was reached on April 19, 2012 between the GoG and the A.P.N.U. to a reduction in the subsidy for electricity supplied to Administrative Region 10 and specifically to the township of Linden.

The Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, with the full concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger and Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine of the A.P.N.U., (who were shown a copy of the statement before it was read to the National Assembly) announced the agreement at the sitting of April 19, 2012.

On the following day, April 20, 2012, leaders of the A.F.C., travelled to Linden and with A.P.N.U. leaders from the Region opposed any reduction in the subsidy for electricity. The Leader of the Opposition also travelled to Linden and at a meeting there reneged on the agreement reached on April 19, 2012. 

At the all day April 22, 2012 meeting between the two sides, progress appeared to have been made and a draft press release was prepared to that effect.

On the following day, April 23, 2012, A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs tabled motions to cut the Budget by over GY $ 20 Billion. The draft press release was not agreed to by the two opposition parties and was never released. Talks between the two sides on the nights of April 23 and 24, 2012 failed to reach agreement, and, in fact, reversed what progress was made with the entrance of the A.F.C delegation. (Please find attached Appendix 1 Notes on meetings between the GOG, APNU and AFC April 18-24, 2012).

The Opposition motions to reduce the 2012 Budget were tabled and voted on by majority at the April 25 and 26, 2012 sittings.

The Appropriation Bill for Budget 2012 was passed as amended with massive cuts of GY $ 20.9 Billion on April 26^th 2012. Most telling are those government agencies which were reduced- the Office of the President, the Guyana Elections Commission, the Guyana Power and Light, the Ministry of Finance’s Low Carbon Development Strategy programme, the State Planning Secretariat, the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) and the Ethnic Relations Commission, one of 4 constitutional rights commissions.

The Government, in the interim again approached the High Court for a ruling on the reductions to the 2012 Budget by the opposition parliamentary political parties. The High Court ruled in the government’s favour stating that the Opposition-controlled National Assembly acted outside its constitutional remit in imposing the cuts to the 2012 Budget.

In keeping with the court ruling on the budget cuts, on August 9^th, the Minister of Finance returned to the House requesting approval for expenditures under supplementary provisions in keeping with the court order. This attempt was partially successful but this time funding of the original heads which were reduced on April 25, 2012 for the Office of the President were reduced to 0.

On this note the recess of first session of the 10th Parliament commenced.

Opposition Motions

In this period, the Opposition has brought several motions which have no legislative effect but which they expect can be used by a majority vote to change the Guyana Constitution and laws such as the President’s Pension and Benefits, removal of Service Commissions, the courts, the Guyana Elections Commission, as budget agencies etc..

A bill entitled The Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill which both the Attorney General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel have advised the Speaker is unconstitutional was still allowed to be tabled and is pending on the Order paper for its second reading. 

The most important of these motions and the one which has led to the Government’s conclusion that parliamentary democracy has been subverted relates to a “non confidence” motion moved against the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. The genesis of this motion goes back to the reneging of the LOP’s support for the reduction of the subsidy for electricity supplied to Administrative Region 10 including the township of Linden. The GoG with a reduced national budget was placed in an invidious position-with the reduced subsidy for the Guyana Power Limited, the reduced subsidy for electricity for the Linden township could no longer be avoided. The GoG announced the introduction of new rates in Region 10 and Linden which would be effective from July 1^st 2012 and which would bring the tariffs in the community to approximately 50% of what the rest of the consumers on the grid were paying.

Following the July 18^th Linden protest during which 3 persons were fatally shot, the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) wrote to the Speaker on Saturday July 20, 2012 to ask for an urgent special sitting to discuss the situation in Linden and the shootings to death of 3 persons and injuries to several persons. The Speaker advised that a sitting was scheduled for Wednesday July 25^th and he would allow the LOP to bring an Adjournment Motion on Matters of Urgent Public Business.

This development was significant as it flew in the face of discussions between the President and the two opposition parties on July 19^th for the establishment of a Commission on Inquiry into the fatal shootings of 3 protesters and injuries to several and loss of property due to arson, and, the appointment of plenipotentiaries to draft the Terms of Reference of this Commission.

The Government learnt that in the early hours of July 25, 2012 the LOP advised the Speaker by email that he would instead be bringing a “no confidence” motion for the removal of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, as a result of the killing of 3 persons on July 18^th in Linden.

The Speaker approved of the LOP’s request to dispense with the relevant Standing Orders and allowed the “no confidence motion” to be debated without notice on the same day that it was laid. The Hansard on July 25^th documents the procedural debated which took place on the floor  regarding allowing a “no confidence motion” to be debated on the same day that it was laid with no notice to the government or the Minister concerned. The Speaker allowed the debate to commence and the Government advised that all of its 34 MPs wished to speak. The debate on that motion was not concluded on July 25 and continued during the July 30^th sitting concluding at 2:12 am on the morning of July 31, 2012. (Please find attached Appendix 11 Hansard of the July 25^th and July 30^th 2012 sittings).

The GoG submitted amendments to the LOP’s motion on July 30 seeking that any action against the Minister await the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. These amendments were rejected by the opposition parties by a majority vote. ( Please find attached Appendix 111 LOP’s motion as adopted by majority vote and the proposed amendments by the Prime Minister)

The LOP then wrote the President and called on him to act in accordance with this majority parliamentary resolution and remove the Minister of Home Affairs. Being fully cognizant that the Guyana Constitution does not provide for such powers in the National Assembly, the rejection of the opposition parties’ call by the President was not unexpected.

The Attorney General approached the courts in August, 2012 on behalf of Minister Rohee to declare the “no confidence “motion in violation of the Guyana Constitution. The court is still to rule.

During the August 2^nd sitting of the National Assembly, the Attorney General announced the Terms of Reference of the Commission of Inquiry which had been agreed to earlier that day between the Government and the A.P.N.U. The A.P.N.U. by way of letter had communicated their approval. Regrettably, on the floor of the National Assembly the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger, dissociated himself from the joint agreement to announce the Terms of Reference. The leader of the minor opposition party, the AFC, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan denied having been involved. As a result, further discussions continued on the TORs from that date to August 22^nd when agreement was reached among all three parties.

On August 9, 2012, the Speaker announced that he would seek legal advice as to whether the National Assembly had the power by way of a majority motion to make the President remove a Minister.

In the recess period from August 10^th to the first sitting on October 22, 2012, agreement was reached by the GoG and the two opposition parties with regard to the TORs and the composition of the Linden Commission of Inquiry as stated earlier on August 22, 2012. The Commission was sworn in by the President under the Commission Act and commenced its work on September 24, 2012.

Noteworthy is that 3 of the 5 Commissioners are non-Guyanese from neighbouring CARICOM countries who were proposed with the assistance of the CARICOM Secretary General and approved by the Government and two opposition parties.

The opposition parties stated publicly that they had proof that the Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Clement Rohee gave orders to the Guyana Police Force to shoot the protesters; they based their case on alleged telephone communication between the Minister and the Commanding Officer on the ground as well as videos they purported to possess to prove that the police shot the protesters. 

During the COI, the lawyers for the 3 killed and injured, several of them being APNU M.P.s as well as the new leader of the A.F.C., Mr. Nigel Hughes, called for phone records to be produced. When these were produced to the COI, they revealed that the telephone communication between the Minister and the Commanding Officer took place after the time of the shooting; they were also permitted to produce videos but these did not show as they had expected the Police shooting nor did CCTV evidence substantiate that claim. The independent Forensic Expert and Pathologist hired by the A.F.C. leader /lawyer proved that the bullets that killed the 3 protesters and injured others were not from police issued weapons or ammunition. ( Please find attached Appendix 1V Government’s statement to the Linden Commission of Inquiry on October 30, 2012).

The Commission called the Minister before it in keeping with the TORs of the COI; from the verbatim records it appears that the COI was unable to link the Minister with the shootings. The Commission of Inquiry heard evidence up to November 2, 2012 and will return in January 2013. The Commission also requested an extension of the life of the Commission to February 28, 2013 which was granted by the President.

On October 22, 2012, the first sitting after the conclusion of the recess, witnessed the opposition parties shouting down the Minister of Home Affairs when he rose to table the first reading of one of his bills. Ironically the bill, entitled the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 2012, if passed would bring Guyana in conformity with some of its international treaty obligations.

The LOP on floor stated that the House by resolution called for the removal of the Minister as he had lost the confidence of the House, and, therefore the Minister should not be allowed to speak, table any bills and or make any request for monies for his sector.

At the November 8, 2012, the Speaker, having received private legal advice from two leading law firms, made a public ruling that in keeping with the Guyana Constitution the National Assembly could not remove a Minister nor could it prevent the Minister as a Member of Parliament from speaking. He, however, suggested that the opposition consider bringing a substantive motion. The Opposition shouted down the Speaker and he was forced to suspend the sitting. The Speaker then summoned the Government and Opposition Chief Whips to his Chambers; the Opposition Chief Whip Ms Amna Ally declared that their side would not allow the Minister to speak. On reconvening a short while later, the Speaker again called on the Minister to proceed with the 2^nd reading of his bill. Again, grave disorder was created in the House by the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs; they refused to listen to the Speaker and he adjourned the sitting in accordance with SO 47(9) to November 22, 2012.( Please find attached Appendix V Speaker’s November 8, 2012 ruling)

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger, following this sitting, submitted a motion seconded by M.P. Ramjattan of the A.F.C. calling for the House to “Prevent Honourable Clement Rohee, M.P., Minister of Home Affairs, from speaking in the National Assembly”.

The Clerk of the National Assembly consulted several parliamentary experts and advised the Speaker in writing that neither the Speaker nor the National Assembly had the power to prevent the Minister from speaking as a Member of Parliament. The Clerk also pointed out that the matter was sub judice and additionally the motion was in violation of several constitutional provisions. His arguments were supported by drawing from the rules and practices of other democratic parliaments. ( Please find attached Appendix V1 Clerk’s written advice to Speaker).

On November 22, 2012, a few minutes before the sitting was to commence, the Speaker instructed that the said motion be placed both on a Notice Paper and on the Supplementary Order Paper for the sitting of the same day.

The November 22, 2012 sitting witnessed a complete subversion of accepted parliamentary norms, practices and the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders.

The Minister of Home Affairs rose to speak on the second reading of his bill and the A.P.N.U. M.P. Basil Williams rose to move the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow Mr. Granger’s motion to be debated. The motion was improperly and incompletely put and yet was allowed by the Speaker. Like the “no confidence motion” of July 25^th the government was presented with the motion on the same afternoon and expected to debate it.

Most unusual was the interruption of and suspension of the Standing Orders in the midst of Government Business in violation of the Standing Orders and time honoured parliamentary conventions and norms. The A.P.N.U. M.P. forgot to suspend that Standing Order regarding Government Business taking precedence but was ably assisted by the Speaker who said that the Member meant that he was suspending all the Standing Orders. Hours of procedural arguments took place in the House led by the Government and the A.P.N.U. MPs.

Despite the facts that the issue of the “no confidence” motion was before the court and the motion interrupted the second reading of a Government bill, in order to insert an Opposition motion by way of suspension of the Standing Orders, the Speaker ruled that:-

(i) The LOP’s motion was “admissible” and “properly before the House” and “matters raised in that motion are matters which should be referred to the Committee of Privileges”;

(ii) The second reading of the Minister’s Firearms (Amendment) Bill would not be allowed to be proceeded with pending a report of the Committee of Privileges;

(iii)”While the matter resides with the Committee of Privileges, l recognize the right of Mr. Rohee to address the House. Any bill that comes or is initiated by him, l will not recognize”

iv) The LOP’s “motion is extant; it is valid; it is pending. It has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. On report of that Committee, you can debate the motion…”

 (v) The Committee of Privileges would be convened shortly. (Please find attached Appendix V11 Speaker’s November 22, 2012 ruling)

The sitting was then adjourned for December 17, 2012.

The Speaker’s ruling shocked not only the Government but many members of civil society and the public.

The Government insisted and continues to insist that no prima facie case had been made that the Minister and a Member of Parliament has committed neither any breach of privilege nor any offense against the dignity of the Parliament. Furthermore, the usurpation of the Government Business on the Order paper was unheard of and unprecedented.

Most disturbing was that the Speaker by his ruling to prevent an M.P. from speaking overturned his own ruling on November 8, 2012 and allowed the opposition parties to succeed with their publicly declared agenda of “gagging” the Minister as a Member of Parliament.

It is significant to note that prior to this sitting, the Leader of the Opposition had publicly declared that the A.P.N.U. were mulling over how to “get rid of Rohee”. This statement triggered a letter to the Speaker from the Government cautioning about such statements and the Minister’s safety. The Speaker made light of this in his response saying that the LOP was an honourable man and he was sure no harm to the Minister’s person was meant.

The Attorney General immediately approached the High Court on November 27, 2012 to seek a ruling and a declaration that the decision and ruling of the Speaker that the motion, presented by LOP David Granger to the National Assembly on November 22, 2012 prohibiting Minister Rohee from speaking and not recognizing him as a Minister of Home Affairs, was unlawful and unconstitutional. He is also seeking a ruling from the court that the Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine any issue remitted to it by virtue of the said ruling of the Speaker. The court is being asked to set aside, vacate, quash or rescind the decision and or ruling of the Speaker that the motion presented by LOP Granger prohibiting Minister Rohee from speaking is unlawful and unconstitutional as an elected member of the National Assembly but also an appointed Minister of the Government pursuant to the Constitution and laws of Guyana.

Events beyond the National Assembly.

In addition to the developments outlined in this document, the Government has been challenged with politically-driven disturbances organized and lead by extreme and fringe elements of the A.P.N.U. and the A.F.C. and other bodies to create political instability and reverse the gains that Guyana has made.

Government of Guyana talks with the opposition parliamentary parties

Linden Disturbances (July 18- August 22, 2012)

Please refer to the detailed Government’s submission to the Linden Commission of Inquiry October 30, 2012 attached as Appendix 1V which chronicles the events and extensive efforts by the Government with the opposition parties and the Region 10 Chairman and other leaders to restore normalcy.

The Government wishes to emphasis that the prolonged period of 36 days of protest and occupation of township which severed the country into two would not have been possible without the complicity of the leaders of the two opposition parties to not tone down the rhetoric and call off the protests as well as the advocacy and misinformation spread by certain media and social networking sites, all linked to the opposition parties or known advocates of these political parties.

Following the August 22, 2012 signed agreement between the Government, at a public meeting on August 24, 2012 which was addressed by A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. leaders in Linden, the following was stated:-

Reverend Morian, A.P.N.U. M.P., disclosed that the struggle continued and encouraged persons to stay mobilized for instructions from the Chairman’s office. He went on to say that once the “government refused to release monies for development purposes in the Region the protest will continue”. Mr. Solomon, Regional Chairman and A.P.N.U. member, stated that “the struggle was not over until implementations were seen and residents must be prepared to take to the streets in their thousands within two weeks if the government failed to commence implementing the agreements. He disclosed that he had spoken with some top brass military commanders who mentioned that it would have been the first time that the military was so extended within a community …from his intelligence over 400 military officers were deployed to Linden… he posited that Lindeners would now be better prepared to deal with the Joint Services should the need occur.”

It is a moot point that the misinformation presented to the public following the signing of the agreement by Mr. Solomon was debunked by the Joint Services own statement to the COI.

At a recent public meeting in the month of November in Linden addressed by the LOP and members of A.P.N.U., exhortations were made for the community to be prepared for the possibility of “pepperpot protests (ppp) in December and in to the new year”.

Agricola

On the evening of October 8, 2012, the A.F.C. leadership at a press conference issued an ultimatum to the President to remove the Minister of Home Affairs within 48 hours.

On October 11th, 2012, on the East Bank Highway in the vicinity of Agricola village, protesters, some imported from outside the community, blocked the main thoroughfare into and out of the capital city, Georgetown, with connections to two other regions at rush hour. Vehicles and debris were used to block the highway on all 4 lanes and fires were set. Thousands of commuters including school children were trapped in a small area with no way to turn. Citizens were attacked and robbed and hundreds of vehicles were unable to move for over 7 hours. Thousands of citizens, including school children, who lived across the Demerara River walked back to Georgetown to try to reach the boats at the Ferry stelling and were also robbed. The Police were physically assaulted and abused by the protesters.

The A.F.C. was the key instigator of this disturbance and when exposed both the LOP, the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. blamed the Police and the Minister of Home Affairs.

Again on October 15^th and 16^th, at rush hour, the protesters attempted to block the highway again and succeeded in blocking 2 of the 4 lanes. This resulted in the backing up of traffic where some vehicles were attacked and damaged by protesters. The Police again were abused but situation was finally brought under control.

The public have been angered by this extremist behavior and have condemned such action.

The Linden disturbances and the Agricola protests are disturbing indications of the level of extremism and irresponsible and reckless leadership that is taking over the political environment in Guyana.

Role of the Social Media

Another most ominous development has arisen in this period whereby Guyanese citizens are being targeted for their political persuasion and their ethnicity. Incitement to violence against Guyanese of Indian descent (the largest ethnic minority) was being promoted on social media such as Facebook and Twitter. 

Elements of the media supportive of the opposition parties were also involved in the incitement of racial hostility and the spread of misinformation.  For instance, on one of the influential online media outlet Demerara Waves, a blog posting calling for the mass murder of Guyanese citizens of Indian descent was not blocked or removed.  

An internet radio owned by Mark Benschop, a man who was charged for treason for the assault on the Office of the President in 2002 and who was subsequently pardoned by the President in 2009, also posted race hate and misinformation.

Both online media outlets are responsible for the violence and burnings which erupted in Linden in the early hours of August 10 when they misinformed Lindeners that the Joint Services were in Linden and instructed by the President “to shoot to kill.”   

A list of supporters with their photographs of the governing party from the Linden area was circulated online in order to facilitate the targeting of these persons during the Linden protests. Most were forced to go into hiding. The Headquarters of the PPP in Linden was attacked and partially burnt and properties of party members were robbed. One of the female supporters found that her photograph, address, telephone number and her young child were posted on Facebook and labeled a PPP informant.

Even at this time of writing, the blog sites and websites of known opposition personalities such as OneVoicecanWin and Brutalfactscontinue to try to fuel and create more “Lindens” and “openly call for the government to be brought to its knees.”

Fanning the flames of ethnic insecurities and promoting racial hostility and racial hatred and conflict are particularly reprehensible in a multi-ethnic society such as Guyana which has made steady progress over the years in overcoming the bitter legacy of racial antagonism which was sown in earlier times.

The internationalization of developments in Guyana

The July 18 killing of 3 protesters was brought to the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) which made a public release on August 3^rd, the GoG publicly responded on August 8^th to the IACHR.

Due to the gravity of these developments, the Government requested and was permitted to brief the OAS Permanent Council on August 23, 2012 and indicated to that body that it “is deeply concerned about this new political environment and the behavior of the official parliamentary parties and fringe elements following the November 28 2011 elections, and is thereby warning that the situation in Guyana is precarious and one that warrants close attention by our friends in the OAS.”(Please find attached Appendix V111 Government’s statement to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States on August 23, 2012)

Conclusion

These developments in the Guyana National Assembly over the last 11 months are at their least disturbing and worrying, however, they become more sinister when taken holistically with the consistent undermining and subversion of parliamentary democracy based on “the dictatorship of one” and repeated declarations of the “new dispensation” by the two opposition parties that their supporters are the majority and they must have their day.

Examined together with the Linden disturbances (July 18-August 22, 2012), the Agricola protests ( October 11, 15 and 16, 2012), and continuous attempts to have similar such road blockages in other areas (which in contrast have had little success thus far), threats of more protests, the targeting of ethnic groups and threats against individuals in Government and anyone who publicly defends the Government in the social media, the Government of Guyana by way of this document is convinced that Guyana is under threat.

It is therefore again warning, as it did the OAS Permanent Council, friendly international and regional organizations that the developments in the National Assembly and the wider society in Guyana are subverting parliamentary democracy and posing a serious and real threat to political stability.

The Guyana Government calls on your organization to monitor and to consider what statements and postures it may wish to make in support of the protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a democratically elected government.