‘If the government doesn’t sign our Bills, we will use the same tactic against them’- APNU
May 11, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under News, Source
Shadow Legal Affairs Minister for A Partnership for National Unity, Attorney at Law Basil Williams, yesterday said that if the President refuses to assent to any of the Opposition’s Bills; they would use the same tactic against the government. Williams’ comment was made yesterday at the party’s weekly press briefing.
According to Williams, it is time for them to confront the government and insist that it observes the constitutional requirements of the country. He said that although the President is a politician on one hand, he still has to exercise constitutional authority and act as the Head of State.
Attorney at Law Basil Williams
Williams noted that Mr. Ramotar, as the Executive President, takes pride of place in the governance architecture of the State of Guyana.
“He is Head of State, Head of Government and an arm of the Parliament of Guyana. He has, therefore, a prior and perpetual retainer on behalf of truth and justice. President Ramotar, in exercising his constitutional discretion is expected, indeed required, to rise above partisan politics in arriving at his decisions,” Williams posited.
He described as unfortunate the decision to withhold assent to two Bills passed by the Majority in the National Assembly. He said that the President has violated the spirit of the country’s Constitution.
According to Williams the President has descended into the political arena, where the dust of the combatants has gotten into his eyes and clouded his vision.
Williams added that in exercising his discretion to withhold his assent to the said Bills, under Article 170 (3) of our Constitution, President Ramotar has done so injudiciously.
In the first place the President has evinced a blatant disregard for our Constitution, Williams said. He sought to explain that article 170 (3) requires the President to return the said Bills within 21 days of the date they were presented to him, and once he withholds his assent, he must give his reasons.
Speaker, Mr. Raphael Trotman, had indicated that the Bills were transmitted to the President’s office since February 25, 2013. However the President returned them to the Speaker on May 7, 2013, in clear violation of the 21 days requirement.
Further, the reasons given, in the case of the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill, No. 24 of 2012, for withholding his assent are unreasonable, unlawful and erroneous in point of law.
“The Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill 2012 does not infringe the provisions of Article 171 (2) of the Constitution. It is not a Bill to impose or to increase taxes or does it impose a charge upon the Consolidated Fund (C.F.) or any Public Funds or does it alter any such fund or provide for the payment, issue, or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund.”
The Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill 2012, seeks to restore the Constitutional status of the “independent entities”, under our Constitution. Moreover, if a Minister can, by order, amend the schedule, surely the National Assembly, which gave him or her power to do so, can also amend it.
The Former President (Benefits and other Facilities) Bill No. 29 of 2012 is largely commonsensical. It seeks to cap the various benefits and thus protect taxpayers’ money from the proclivities of lascivious Government functionaries exhibited over the past twenty years.
The Bills can only be presented to the President again and within six months of being returned, if supported by a two-thirds majority of all the elected Members of Parliament. Williams further noted that the President’s actions have precipitated a Constitutional crisis.
His decisions to withhold Assent to the two Bills can also be challenged in the Court.
