Dear Editor, The statement attributed to Mr. Anil Nandlall, Attorney General in the article in today’s (February 3) Sunday Stabroek “Opposition bills awaiting assent, not yet sent to AG for preparation) is strange and troubling, but alas, not surprising. Mr. Nandlall is quoted as saying that “The opposition bills have not reached the Attorney General’s Chambers” “for his inputs”. Neither proposition has any constitutional or statutory underpinning and both are downright wrong.
First, that Mr. Nandlall would refer to a Bill passed by the National Assembly as an opposition bill is ludicrous and misinformed. Such a Bill ceases to be anybody’s but the National Assembly’s Bill.
And on the constitutional arrangements for the progression into law of a Bill passed by the National Assembly, I respectfully refer Mr. Nandlall to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly. Order 65(2) of those Standing Orders provides that where a Bill is passed by the National Assembly the Speaker has the power to “correct any patent errors and make such other changes in the Bill as are consequential upon the amendments accepted by the [National] Assembly”.
And on the question of the role and relevance of the Office of the Attorney General, Standing Order 67 provides that the Bill remains in the “custody of the Clerk of the National Assembly who shall, subject to Article 164 of the Constitution (relating to procedures for altering the Constitution) at the earliest opportunity, submit the Bill to the President (emphasis added) for his or her assent and the President shall assent in accordance with Article 170 of the Constitution”.
Article 170 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana requires the President, who is part of Parliament, to assent to Bills presented to him following passage in the National Assembly.
It goes on to state that where the President withholds his assent, he must return the Bill to the Speaker within 21 days with a message stating the reasons for withholding his assent.
It is frightening how little the learned Attorney General seems to know of the Constitution or the Standing Orders, even on matters on which he ventures to speak publicly.
How he came to the position that he has the power to “give his inputs” to Bills already passed is a mystery which he ought to explain, or retract.
Of course, it is obviously within the President’s power to consult with his Attorney General on any matter should he choose to do so. But what is not within the President’s right or power is for him to act outside of the provisions of the Constitution, including the timeframe set out in Article 170 (2).
No ruse or defect in the understanding by the Attorney General of these requirements should be allowed by the Speaker and the National Assembly to frustrate a Bill properly passed.
Christopher Ram