Latent and patent autocratism ruled Opposition’s behaviour in Parliament in 2013-Minister Nandlall

Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall has described 2013 in the National Assembly as having one singular characteristic trend, that is, a relentless attempt by the Opposition to trespass into the province of the Executive.

Speaking on the television programme, Roundtable, Minister Nandlall noted that though the Constitution has outlined the role and functions of the Executive and the Legislature, what is discernible since the Opposition has had control of the legislature, is “a constant attempt to increase those functional responsibilities, to extend the powers and to extend the jurisdiction of the legislature way beyond that which is contemplated and provided for by the constitution.”

Budget cut

He noted that this extension of the role of the legislature manifested itself when the Opposition cut the 2013 Budget despite the Court ruling after the 2012 Budget that the Opposition in the National Assembly has no power to reduce expenditures put forward by the Minister of Finance in the form of the National Budget. The Court also ruled that it was the role of the Minister of Finance, being a delegate of the President to present those national estimates.

Minister Nandlall said that “when the Opposition cut, (the budget) they not only cut, but they put forward their own estimates of a $1 in the instances where they have cut… and they passed those estimates. So in essence, not only have they performed an act of reduction of the estimates, which the constitution forbids them to do, but they have arrogated onto themselves, an Executive function, which essentially is the presentation of the estimates,” he said.

No confidence motion

There is also the case of the Opposition passing a No-Confidence motion against Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, which the Court and the Speaker of the House later ruled that they had no power to so do.

The Opposition also attempted to gag Minister Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly in an effort to censure him, for what they termed incompetent performance of his duties as Minister of Home Affairs.

“Again if we refer to the Constitution we see that the Minister of Home Affairs is an Executive Officer, he is a delegate of the President, appointed by the President, and the functions which he performs in the discharge of his ministerial responsibilities are Executive functions. If he defaults, or if he is incompetent in the performance of those functional responsibilities, then it is the President who appointed him, who must recall his appointment or censure him. It is not open to the legislature to censure an Executive Officer in respect of the performance of his executive functions,” Minister Nandlall pointed out.

Directing Finance Minister

There were also other instances where the Opposition sought to impose on the Executive policies, or effect change of policies by way of motions. Minister Nandlall noted that in many instances the policies that the Opposition was seeking to implement were unlawful and in violation of the constitution.

He pointed to the Opposition’s move to get the Minister of Finance to deposit in the Consolidated Fund, monies that are held by several statutory agencies. The AG pointed out that these agencies are governed by legislation that stipulate where their monies are to be deposited. He noted too, that the Financial Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) which permit these agencies to be created, also allows for their monies to be kept separate and apart from the Consolidated Fund.

The Constitution itself in a provision which deals with finances, specifically allows for the establishment of these agencies, and for their finances to be kept separate and apart from the consolidated funds.

“So you have an Opposition in the Parliament using a one-seat majority, moving motions, directing the Minister of Finance, to disregard the Constitution, the statutory agencies’ statutory obligations, provided by their statutes that create them and to disregard expressed provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, and the constitution, to basically invade these statutory authorities, disregard their internal-governmental structures, disregard their board of directors, go into their bank accounts and take out money from their bank accounts and deposit them into the Consolidated Fund,” Minister Nandlall noted.

“We have had several motions to that effect passed. These motions are unconstitutional, unlawful and they are a complete abrogation of the role of a legislature,” he said.

Separation of Powers

Minister Nandlall said that the Opposition in the Legislature has no power to cause the violation of the laws and they no power to compel the Executive by the way of motion or otherwise to perform functions that are executive in nature. Every attempt to do so violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. 

According to the Attorney General, the role of the Legislature is to participate in the passing of laws, not to bring Bills to the National Assembly for enactment.

He said that the Opposition in the Legislature ought to be working with the Government. He noted that they have to get the government’s support in relation to bills that they need to bring to the National Assembly, for the simple reason being, after the bill is passed into law it is the Executive that has to administer and to execute those laws.

The legislature also has an oversight accountability function. This is largely done in two ways, in the Committee of Supply and in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC.)

In the Committee of Supply, they are empowered to question every Minister in respect of every budgetary allocation. They can either support or not support the particular budgetary allocation if they are dissatisfied with the answers provided. In that case, the Appropriation Act is amended to delete that particular budgetary allocation that has not been supported. This is a process that takes about two weeks after the budget is presented, and the debates are concluded.

In terms of the PAC, this Committee is always chaired by the opposition. Its principal functions is to examine the Auditor General’s report and to call before that committee, any Minister, Government Officer or State Functionary to answer any questions they may have in respect of matters raised in the AG’s report.

They also have a responsibility to generally oversight government’s functions and policies, and to discuss and get their views in the formulation of policies. They can do so, on the floor of the National Assembly by asking questions, or by moving motions to titillate discussion on any topic or ask questions whilst in the Parliamentary Committee system.

The Parliamentary Committee system allows for the opposition to scrutinise sectoral policies and performance of the government, for example the Economic Services, Foreign Relations and the Natural Resources Committees. In these committees, the opposition can summon the sector minister and the staff to answer any question or discuss any matter that falls within the Minister’s sector.

Autocratism

The AG posited that the Opposition’s extending of the power of the Legislature smacks of “latent, patent autocratism that overwhelms the Opposition in the National Assembly.”

He reminded that the major Opposition, the APNU is largely comprised of the PNC, which has a long history of dictatorship and authoritarianism. “I believe that very little has changed, so they see politics as an area where they have to dominate, where what they say, is what must prevail. So democracy is an antithesis to them,” he said.

The Opposition’s tendency to trespass into the province of the Executive also stems from a genuine ignorance of the constitution, the laws of the land and the role and functions of the National Assembly, he concluded.