Opposition continues disrespect for the rule of law

Written by, Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:28, Source - Guyana Chronicle

AS have become their customary undemocratic modus operandi, the parliamentary opposition have once again showcased their total disregard for the rule of law.

Their latest illustration of the gross impertinence and contempt they have for the Constitution was displayed last Thursday, when they once again stormed out of Parliament after Speaker of the House, Mr. Raphael Trotman, abided by a High Court decision which affirmed the constitutional right of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee to speak in Parliament, and allowed him to so do.

In January of this year, Chief Justice Ian Chang had ruled that Minister Rohee, by virtue of his being an elected member of the House, is entitled to speak on behalf of those who elected him. This was after Attorney General Anil Nandlall moved to the court challenging a decision by Speaker Trotman to send the opposition’s no-confidence motion, which sought to gag Rohee, to  the Privileges Committee.
The walk-out is just another in a series of glaring indications of gross disrespect for, and undemocratic actions that they have displayed in the past against the Parliament and its instituted procedures.

All established principles continue to be trampled upon by the opposition in Parliament; and by extension, they continue to trample upon the Constitution, since this is the instrument that has established the Parliament, and should therefore be regarded as supreme. However, the opposition, at every given opportunity, continue to disregard it, and in the process, continue to demonstrate their callousness and disrespect for the rule of law and procedures.

It also speaks volumes for the indifference and disregard that they hold for the Honourable Chief Justice Ian Chang, and by extension the judiciary.

It has now become the norm to not only witness the opposition violating the constitution on a regular basis, but also to witness their contempt for clear pronouncements emanating from the judiciary.

The question that begs an answer is how these same members of the opposition can aspire to lead Guyana, when they refuse to adhere to, respect, and uphold the very laws which govern it (Guyana). This situation gives the Guyanese public, and indeed the world, an eerie insight into what is to be expected if the opposition is ever to hold the reins of government in this country.

This latest undemocratic behaviour by the opposition is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a new phenomenon as, over the years, Guyanese have witnessed, time and again, the defiant stance they have adopted to defy constitutionality.

This reckless disregard for the rule of law was evident just recently when they unconstitutionally tabled in Parliament the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill 2012 (FMAA); and then, using their one-seat majority, ensured that it was approved. The said bill also contained a host of deficiencies.

The bill sought to remove several entities from the list of budgetary agencies under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA), including the Judicial Service, Public Service, Police Service, and Teaching Service Commissions; the Public Service Appellate Tribunal; the Supreme Court of Judicature; the Office of the Ombudsman; the Parliament Office; and the Guyana Elections Commission.

Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh had observed that the intention of the opposition in proposing the bill was to seek ‘political titillation’ and to reflect an adverse intent of the House in 2003, when the original bill was tabled and approved.

He had further explained that the Bill was fundamentally flawed, and suggested that it should be rejected. He had noted that the bill sought to remove the agencies from the schedule of the FMAA without first implementing an alternative set of arrangements to govern their financial management and provisions of financial allocation. This, Minister Singh said, would result in these agencies being left in limbo.

He also pointed out that the tabling of the bill was also in breach of the Constitution.
Article 171 (2) of the Constitution states that the National Assembly shall not proceed upon any Bill, including an amendment to a Bill which makes provisions for an imposition of any charge upon the Consolidated Fund, or for altering any such charge, that Bill or the amendment to a Bill should come to the National Assembly with the prior consent of the Cabinet.

Minister Singh further pointed out several other deficiencies in the bill, including the removal of entities which are not in the schedule, such as the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which is not a budget agency.

This, Minister Singh said, must be deemed a fundamental flaw, as one cannot remove from the schedule something that is not there in the first instance. Disregarding these glaring unconstitutionalities, the amended bill was, however, passed unanimously by the opposition vote.

It seems as though in a last, pathetic, desperate attempt to hold the reins of power, the opposition is misusing its meagre, one-seat majority to try to create a parallel executive in Guyana.