THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT TO THE IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT OF A PRIME MINISTER

May 18, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

A honeymoon is an important period in any marriage. It is time for a new type of discovery between the married parties.  Every new government deserves a honeymoon, particularly when the new administration succeeds a regime that has been in power for a very long time.

Any new government needs time to settle in and make its mark. It should not be judged harshly too early. It is not this column’s intention to be harsh on the new administration. However when serious problems emerge on the very first day of the honeymoon, it does not bode well for the future.

This column has read what the incoming President said at his swearing-in ceremony. A swearing-in of a President is tantamount to an inauguration. The defining feature of any inauguration is the taking of the Oath of Office.

There is no difference between the swearing-in of the President and the inauguration.

On Saturday the elected President took his Oath of Office. That ceremony was his inauguration. It was a surprise to learn therefore that despite this official swearing-in, Guyana is going to have a formal inauguration ceremony on May 26 at the National Stadium.

I can only assume that this means the swearing-in of the Ministers and not an inauguration of the President. But why at the National Stadium? Why the fanfare and extravagance?

A President has already been sworn in. It was expected that this would have been followed by the swearing in of the Prime Minister. After all, the Prime Minister is the principal assistant to the President.

The President in his address following his inauguration had stated that the reason why the ceremony was held at Public Buildings was out of respect for the parliament and the constitution. As we know, it is the Court that interprets the Constitution where there is a dispute as to the meaning of any of its provisions.

The swearing-in of Mr. Samuel Hinds as Prime Minister was previously challenged on the grounds that he needed first to be sworn in as a Member of the National Assembly. The Court in its ruling held that one need not first be appointed as a Member of the National Assembly before being sworn in as Prime Minister.

It is true that Article 101 of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint an elected member of the National Assembly as Prime Minister. But that article cannot be read in isolation.

It must be read in conjunction with Article 103. Article 103 designates the Prime Minister as a Minister and also allows for the President to appoint a Minister from amongst persons who are either elected members of the National Assembly or eligible for such election.

So long as someone is qualified to be a member of the National Assembly, that person is eligible for appointment as Prime Minister. The president can also appoint non-elected persons as Ministers. In other words, someone can be appointed as Prime Minister and later sworn in as a Member of the National Assembly, providing that person was eligible for election to the Assembly

Despite this legal ruling, the coalition may be playing it safe by waiting on the convening of parliament before appointing as Prime Minister. But this presents a dilemma because it is the Prime Minister who is usually the Head of Government’s Business in the National Assembly.

If there is no Prime Minister at the first sitting of the National Assembly, how can there be a Head of Government’s Businesses at the first sitting?

More importantly the non-appointment at this time creates a vacuum within the government until parliament is convened. It is the Prime Minister who usually acts in the place of the President and therefore in the event of an unforeseen circumstance, we could be thrown into a constitutional crisis by the non-appointment of a Prime Minister.

The appointment of a Prime Minister also has special significance in the context of the Cummingsburg Agreement. It is the understanding of that accord that the Prime Minister will be delegated certain responsibilities, including the chairing of Cabinet.

The chairing of Cabinet by the Prime Minister is however in direct contravention of the Constitution which insists that it is only in the absence of the President that the Prime Minister can chair Cabinet.

If therefore there is so much caution being exercised in relation to the appointment of a Prime Minister what will happen between now and the convening of parliament. Will Cabinet not meet?