Speaker’s error forces Ramotar’s rejection – AG Anil Nandlall - … says President is no pawn of National Assembly

By Abena Rockcliffe , May 15, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under News, Source

Even as the opposition declared that it will act in a “tit for tat” manner, as it relates to the passing of new legislation, the government is still seeking to justify the President’s decision not to assent to two “key” opposition-proposed Bills; indicating that it will stick with that position.

House Speaker Raphael Trotman

Initially, President Donald Ramotar in a letter to House Speaker, Raphael Trotman, had premised his decision to withhold his assent on the “fact” that the two pieces of legislation do not conform with the Constitution. In that letter, Ramotar didn’t blame the Speaker.

But, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, recently announced that the President is of the opinion that Trotman “fell into error” during the passage of the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill.

Nandlall’s utterances were made at a press conference held at Freedom House on Monday. He said that the President’s contention is that Trotman erred when he failed to recognize the aforementioned Bill as one which needed the recommendation of Cabinet as signified by a Minister. Even though that was stated in the President’s letter, the Head of State at that point laid no blame at the feet of Trotman.

The Attorney General noted that “the power resides in the Speaker to determine whether a particular Bill requires the recommendation of Cabinet, is actually the subject of an article in the Constitution, and it relates to a particular type of Bill – (Article 171).”

The Article cited by Nandlall stipulates that the Bill cannot be introduced by a “private member”, meaning a member of the National Assembly that is neither a Minister of government nor the Speaker.

Even as he stated that the Speaker’s power in this regard is not disputed, Nandlall noted that it is the President’s contention, that “The Speaker fell into error, when he determined that the particular Bill under review (the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment)) did not fall into that category of Bills which requires the recommendation of Cabinet as signified by a Minister. This difference of opinion is clearly permitted.”

According to him, “The clear intendment of Article 170 is to ensure that the Executive President of this land is not held to ransom or captive of the National Assembly, and it is to be interpreted to prevent such an eventuality, so that there will be at all times due equilibrium between the two constituent components which comprise of that unitary whole called parliament."

President Donald Ramotar

As he sought to strengthen his argument, Nandlall quoted Article 51 of the Constitution which provides, “there shall be a Parliament of Guyana, which shall consist of the President and the National Assembly”.

The President’s withholding his assent to the two opposition-proposed Bills, Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Bill 2012, and The Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment Bill) 2012, which did not receive the support of the Government in the National Assembly, evoked criticism from the opposition parties.

Very soon after the announcement by the President, leaders from both Parliamentary opposition parties expressed that they were not surprised that the President had withheld assent.

The joint opposition had accused the President of precipitating a constitutional crisis. But at the press conference, Nandlall denounced that pronouncement, saying that it holds no merit.

He cited article Article 8 of the Constitution which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of Guyana and states that of any other law which is inconsistent with it, that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

“The gravamen of the list of reasons advanced by the President for withholding his assent is that the two Bills collide with Article 8 of the Constitution and are accordingly void.

In sum, the reasons tendered by the President are not fanciful, irrational or even political, but are indeed principled and legal. Obviously, one is free to disagree with the reasons proffered.  But that cannot be a rational basis for the injudicious assertion of a “constitutional crisis,” Nandlall said.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall

“A fundamental constitutional reality which must be recognized in this legislative matrix, is that the President is not a mere rubber-stamp of the National Assembly.  The President has a constitutionally endowed jurisdictional freedom to withhold his assent to Bills if he believes them to be misconceived and wrong in principle.”

Nandlall reminded that that when a Bill is presented to the President, he is constitutionally empowered to signify his assent to the same or, to withhold his assent.

“In the event that he chooses to withhold his assent, then he is obliged to return the Bill to the Speaker within 21 days of the date when it was presented with a message stating the reasons why he has withheld his assent. Therefore the President acted within the constitutionally prescribed parameters when he withheld his assent and returned the Bills to the Speaker with his reasons for withholding his assent.”

However, Nandlall omitted the fact that the President only returned the Bill after he received a letter from the Speaker reminding him of his duty. At the time when the letter was sent to the President, more than 21 days would have elapsed since the legislations were sent to his office.