Economists Dr Maurice Odle and Professor Tarron Khemraj say they have been harassed by immigration at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, Timehri and said it seems that the same tactics employed by the Burnham regime against perceived opponents are being applied by the Ramotar administration.

In a joint letter appearing in today’s issue of the Stabroek News, Odle and Khemraj said

“It appears that opposition supporters are being stopped and mentally harassed at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport both when they enter and leave Guyana. We have on occasions been stopped and our passports held for some time as the Immigration Officer sought permission from the senior officer on whether we can proceed. The last occasion this occurred was the night of November 6 when we were leaving for the 44th Annual Monetary Studies Conference hosted this year by the Central Bank of Suriname on behalf of the UWI-based Caribbean Centre for Money and Finance, a research arm of The Committee of Central Bank Governors. We were both told that because of our political activities our names are placed on a list.

“Professor Tarron Khemraj has experienced these stops for at least two years both when he enters and leaves Guyana. Dr Maurice Odle has been experiencing similar situations since the middle of this year.

“It is well known that Professor Khemraj has been an active supporter of the AFC before and during the last election while Dr Odle was on the side of WPA/APNU.

“Editor, we are concerned and highly opposed to these acts of surveillance.

“We are aware that the Jagdeo regime established an intelligence unit in the grounds of Castellani House and are surprised that taxpayers’ monies are being used for such unnecessary reasons.

“It was bad enough under the Burnham regime, which had produced a Recognition Handbook of WPA activists. Today we see similar perverse activities being repeated under the Ramotar administration”.

The Government of Guyana today released a document which it has presented to the international community in which it says that Guyana is “under threat” because of the policies and postures of the opposition.

In the conclusion to the lengthy document, it said that it is warning again, “as it did the OAS Permanent Council, friendly international and regional organizations that the developments in the National Assembly and the wider society in Guyana are subverting parliamentary democracy and posing a serious and real threat to political stability.

“The Guyana Government calls on your organization to monitor and to consider what statements and postures it may wish to make in support of the protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a

democratically elected government.”

The full document issued follows:

*Guyana’s parliamentary democracy being subverted: The Opposition’s

‘dictatorship of one’*

One year after the new parliamentary dispensation, the Government

Information Agency (GINA) is releasing this document which was circulated

to international and regional bodies.

*The Government of Guyana’s Briefing to international and regional bodies

on the post-November 28, 2011 general elections**.*

*Introduction:*

After the November 28, 2011, general and regional elections under the

proportional representation system, the Peoples’ Progressive Party/Civic

won the single largest bloc of votes and therefore in accordance with the

Guyana Constitution formed the government with 32 seats; the two opposition

parties, A Party for National Unity (A.P.N.U.) and the Alliance for Change

(A.F.C.) won 26 and 7 seats respectively. The two opposition parties,

therefore, have a combined one seat majority in the National Assembly. This

is the first time in Guyana’s history that such a situation has occurred in

the Legislature.

It should be noted that Guyana Constitution is based on a hybrid

Republican-Westminster parliamentary system headed by an Executive

President who also heads the Parliament but is not a sitting member of the

National Assembly. The Parliament is comprised of the President, the

Speaker, the Clerk and the National Assembly.

The National Assembly is made up of 65 Members of Parliament elected under

a mixed proportional representation electoral system with 25 seats coming

from the 10 Administrative Geographic Regions and 40 from National Top Up.

Members of Parliament are named by the Representatives of the Lists of the

political parties that have won seats in the National Assembly by way of

formal notification to the Guyana Elections Commission. This system is

clearly defined in the Constitution and in statutes.

The Prime Minister is the Leader of the House and Ministers of the

Government must be Members of Parliament. The President, as provided for in

the Constitution, may appoint an additional 4 technocratic non-voting

Ministers and 2 non- voting Parliamentary Secretaries to the National

Assembly.

The Leader of the Opposition is provided for in the Guyana Constitution and

in statute and is elected by the non-governmental Members of Parliament.

The Constitution explicitly defines and provides for the division of powers

between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

The 1999-2001 broad-based Constitutional Reform Commission and the

resulting constitutional reforms were unanimously agreed to by the

parliamentary political parties through an extensive inclusive consultative

process that included communities across the 10 Administrative Regions and

civil society. This was then followed by an intensive parliamentary reform

process (2002-2006) which created an expanded committee system and enhanced

oversight of all facets of government supported by revised Standing Orders

in both 2006 and 2011.

Most notable, and, in furtherance of the constitutional provisions, the

National Assembly in 2007 by a majority vote of the government and the

major opposition party passed an amendment to the Constitution which allows

the Representative of the List of a political party to recall  their Member

of National Assembly on prescribed grounds for such removal. In the case of

the government side the President is the Representative of the List.

Since the convening of the 10th Parliament on January 12, 2012 by His

Excellency President Donald Ramotar, the Guyana Constitution, parliamentary

norms and conventions and the Standing Orders of the Guyana Parliament have

been under constant threat by Opposition action taken as a result of their

one seat majority.

On November 22, 2012 the Government and thereby the Parliament was

subjected to such violations of constitutionally provided human rights and

the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders that the government has come to the

conclusion that parliamentary democracy is being subverted.

The Government has taken note of the 2011 study of the Constitution Unit ,

The Institute for Government, the University College of London, on “Making

Minority Government Work” which  outlined the basic powers that any

democratically elected government, including a minority government, have in

the Legislature:-

i) The government retains dominance of the parliamentary agenda based on

the main rule that the “government business shall have precedence at every

sitting “(Guyana Parliament 2011 Standing Orders 24 (2));

ii) Only government can propose additional expenditure and any amendments

to bills with financial implications should be ruled inadmissible; (Guyana

Parliament 2011 SO 25 and 53)

iii) Government has the sole right of initiative in relation to secondary

legislation, orders and regulations and these are made by Ministers; (as

prescribed by statute)

iv) Government can use its prerogative powers to create advisory and

regulatory bodies, change machinery of government and make public

appointments; (Guyana Constitution)

v) Control of the Budget will remain principally a matter for government;

(Guyana Constitution)

vi)Power of dissolution /calling for election remains principally a matter

for government;     (Guyana Constitution)

vii) Control of public bodies and public appointments principally a matter

of government;  (Guyana Constitution)

viii) Government has control of the political, parliamentary and

legislative agenda; (Guyana Constitution and SO 24)

vix) Whilst opposition parties can influence government policy, Parliament

cannot make policy or force the government to do anything against its will.

Parliamentary motions can only be advisory. (Parliamentary convention)

Most of these powers outlined above are being unraveled, or, compromised by

the “dictatorship of one” of the two opposition parties in the Guyana

National Assembly.

Hence the Government has decided to document these disturbing developments

for the attention of you and your organization.

* *

*Post 2011 elections developments in the National Assembly:*

The President having been sworn in on December 3, 2011 and recognising the

new dynamics in the National Assembly invited the leaders of the two

opposition parliamentary parties to meet him on December 6, 2011. This

gathering became known as the Inter-Parliamentary Parties Dialogue (IPPD)

which in its initial meetings focused on trying to reach consensus on the

election of the Speaker. Government’s efforts to reach agreement on the

Speaker continued up to and within hours of the first sitting on January

12, 2012 but were unsuccessful.

Therefore from the very outset, the Government was challenged; this has

continued unabated for the last 11 months of the 10th Parliament.

* *

*Speaker and Deputy Speaker*

The Speaker, Mr. Raphael Trotman (at the time Representative of the List

and the then Leader of the Alliance for Change, A.F.C., the smallest party

with 7 seats) and the Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Deborah Backer ( an Executive

Member of A Party for National Unity, A.P.N.U., with 26 seats) were elected

by majority from these two opposition parliamentary parties at the first

sitting on January 12, 2012.

The Government’s motion of its nominee to the Speaker was defeated. Most

interesting is that the government’s nominee for the Speaker was the former

Speaker of the previous (9th) Parliament, who both opposition parties had

been repeatedly loud in praise of his stewardship.

This break with normal traditional parliamentary convention in Guyana where

government would name the Speaker and the Opposition would have the Deputy

Speaker was the first indication that the opposition parties would use

their one seat majority to achieve their parliamentary ambitions.

It is particularly noteworthy that the APNU/AFC Opposition conspiracy on

the election of the Speaker has created an aberration where the Speakership

is held by the smallest party in the House, the Deputy-Speakership by the

second smallest party in the house, and the largest party in the House is

excluded from both of these offices. The Government is of the view that

this must be one of, if not, the only such situation in any Legislature in

the world.

* *

*President’s Address to the National Assembly*

The President addressed the National Assembly on February 10, 2012. The

President’s Address was debated at the March 15, 2012 sitting where the

APNU and AFC did not support the motion and abstained from voting. The

motion to adopt the President’s Address was passed with a vote of 32 for.

* *

*Composition of Parliamentary Committees*

At the February 10th sitting, the members of the Standing Committee of

Selection were nominated on the floor of the House by both government and

opposition parties. The two opposition parties by motion reduced the size

of the Committee from 10 members with the Speaker as chair to 9 with 4 for

the government, and, 5 (4 APNU and 1 AFC) for the opposition with the

Speaker as the Chair. This was voted on and adopted by majority vote of one.

Since then the accepted norms and practices of the Committee of Selection

have been under attack and its function grossly compromised.

At the first meeting of the Committee of Selection chaired by the Speaker

on February 24, 2012, the combined opposition parties used their majority

on the Committee to establish new rules on the composition of the

parliamentary committees.

The Parliamentary Opposition ruled based on what they called the “new

dispensation in the National Assembly” that the Opposition would have the

majority of seats on all committees and the number of seats on each

committee, unless otherwise specified, would be reduced from 10 to 9 seats.

They proposed a formula of 4-4-1 and voted by majority for 9 seats on all

committees with 4 for the PPP/C (with 49.3% of the electorate), 4 for the

A.P.N.U. ( with 40% of the electorate) and  1 for the A.F.C.( 10.3 % of the

electorate).

The Government had also made a proposal at the meeting for parity on the

committees based on the new situation in the National Assembly of 5 seats

for the government and 5 seats for the combined opposition, 4 for A.P.N.U.

and 1 for A.F.C.. The Government argued that its proposal was closer to the

electoral results than the combined Opposition’s proposal. However, this

was rejected. With that, by vote of a majority, the Government’s

representation on all committees which the Standing Orders provided for “no

less than 6 no more than 10 members” was now reduced to a minority.

In fact, the combined opposition parties now have disproportional

representation on the 9 member committees of 54 % which they neither

individually (40% APNU with 26 seats and 10% AFC with 7 seats) nor

collectively attained at the polls and the government has 40 % of the

representation on the committees which is below its 49.2% of the polls.

By way of correspondence to the Speaker, the Government asked that the

March 2, 2012 meeting to elect the chairs of the standing committees be

postponed pending the outcome of the discussions at the level of the

Inter-Parliamentary Party Dialogue (IPPD) between the President and the

leaders of the opposition parties.

The Government further documented its concerns to the Speaker on March 6,

2012. On March 7, 2012, the Committee of Selection continued to nominate

members to sit on the remaining committees.

On March 13, 2012 the Speaker proceeded to hold the first meeting of the

appointed committees to elect the chairpersons which other than those

chaired by the Speaker became controlled by the A.P.N.U., the major

opposition party.

The Speaker as the Chairperson accepted the Parliamentary Opposition’s

position of having the numerical majority on the executive of the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Guyana Branch.

As per norm the Opposition chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee

was continued.

The Standing Orders, in consonance with the concept of inclusionary

democracy provided for in the Constitution, explicitly state that there

will be parity in the Parliamentary Management Committee chaired by the

Speaker. It goes so far as to state that there must be in attendance a

minimum of 2 members each from the Government and Opposition in order to

proceed with the business of a meeting.

The constitutionally created four (4) Parliamentary Standing Sectoral

Committees as provided for in the Guyana Constitution and described in the

Standing Orders have a 4:3 distribution of seats in favour of the governing

party and chairpersons that rotated annually between the government and

opposition. Each side has one non-voting alternate. These 4 sectoral

committees play a critical oversight role on the performance of government

in the economy, social services, natural resources and foreign services. In

the 9th Parliament these committees functioned and summoned the Prime

Minister, Ministers and state agencies before them as well as made site

visits to government projects and agencies.

At the March 30, 2012 sitting, two A.P.N.U. Members of Parliament tabled

motions to the National Assembly which sought to revise the relevant

Standing Orders to provide the opposition with a majority in the membership

of the Parliamentary Management Committee and the 4 Sectoral Committees.

These motions were sent to the Standing Orders Committee.

The Government approached the High Court for a legal interpretation of the

provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders with regard to the

composition of the parliamentary committees to reflect as far as possible

the “balance of parties in the National Assembly “.The Court did not rule

in the Government’s favour.

On October 18, 2012, the Government wrote the Speaker prior to the meeting

of the Committee of Selection scheduled for the same day to propose the

principle that government bills to be considered in Special Select

Committees should have committees based on parity and under the government

side’s chairmanship.

At that meeting of the Committee of Selection, both the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C.

members rejected the government’s proposal and stated that the issue of the

composition of committees had already been decided at 4:4:1. The 5 newly

appointed special select committees, including those working on government

bills, were then appointed and by majority opposition controlled. November

28, 2012 has been set for the election of the chairs of some of these

committees.

There are 22 committees constituted – 8 chaired by the Speaker; 5 chaired

by the A.P.N.U.; 5 special select committees pending the election of the

chairpersons. The 4 sectoral committees have not elected their chairpersons

pending the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee to the National

Assembly and its decision.

It is important to point out that although the Speaker and or the A.P.N.U.

now control the chairmanship of all the parliamentary committees, few are

functioning.

The Public Accounts Committee only commenced summoning government agencies

to answer with regard to the Auditor General’s 2010 Public Accounts Report

in October 2012. In the meantime the Auditor General’s 2011 Public Accounts

Report was tabled in the House.

The constitutionally provided Committee to Appoint Members to the Service

Commissions and the 4 Rights Commissions only held its first meeting on

November 21, 2012.

The Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by the Leader of the Opposition

has met twice.

*Setting the date of Sittings of the House*

The time honoured parliamentary practice and Standing Orders’ provisions

allow the Government to independently set the date for sittings. This has

been overturned.

The Opposition on March 15, 2012 voted down the Prime Minister when he set

a date for the next sitting and a motion tabled and seconded by the

A.P.N.U. MPs named a different date for the next sitting. Since then, dates

for sittings of the National Assembly now have to be negotiated between the

Chief Whips or receive their concurrence.

* *

*Government Business*

In the first and second session of the 10th Parliament, the Government has

brought 24 bills to date. Nine (9) were passed and assented; 1

Supplementary Financial Paper was defeated; An Appropriation Bill for the

2012 Budget was passed as amended with a GY $20 B cut and assented; the

second Supplementary Appropriation Bill was passed as amended and assented;

5 government bills have been sent to 2 Parliamentary Special Select

Committees, some since July 30, 2012, and awaiting the election of the

chairpersons; 5 government bills are waiting on the Order Paper, some since

October 22 2012, and cannot be heard due to the developments in the

National Assembly on November 8th and 22nd, 2012. Two have been deferred by

the government following further discussion with stakeholders.

*Financial Papers*

The Constitution provides for the Finance Minister to bring financial

papers for consideration of the House to approve and supplementary

expenditures to the annual authorized budgetary appropriation. These

approvals and or authorizations are usually granted particularly as the

expenditures in most cases would have already been committed.

As provided for by the Constitution, the Minister of Finance is allowed to

utilise monies from the Contingency Fund in certain prescribed

circumstances including between the period of dissolution of the Parliament

for elections and its reconvening and is required to bring these

Supplementary Financial Papers (SPs) as soon as the National Assembly is

reconstituted.

The Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, tabled 2 Supplementary Financial

Papers (SPs) on February 10, 2012. On February 16, 2012, during the debate

on these SPs the A.P.N.U and the A.F.C. withheld approval or negativized a

number of sub-heads on one of the papers, thus leaving a charge of GY $79 M

unauthorized. More interesting is that the Opposition parties did not

submit to the normal procedures required to bring amendments to these SPs.

Despite efforts by the Government in writing to Speaker and on the floor of

the House, the Speaker allowed these actions to proceed.

Normal parliamentary convention does not support leaving a charge on the

Contingency Fund. One SP was passed as amended. The second paper, was

postponed after a motion by 2 A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. Members to withdraw the

paper, was put in abeyance by the Speaker.

The Speaker declared at the end of the sitting, that he would allow the

Minister to return to the House with another SP for the items where

expenditure was not authorized.

At the March 15, 2012 sitting, the Speaker in response to the Government’s

protests about the treatment of the first SP not being in order by

parliamentary convention and norms, ruled that the treatment of the first

paper despite leaving a charge of the Contingency Funds was in order. The

second paper was passed by 31 for, 26 opposed and 7 declined to vote.

The Minister of Finance then returned to the National Assembly on June 14,

2012 to address the outstanding charge of $79 M by way of a Supplementary

Financial Paper and after much wrangling and procedural arguments, the

Speaker allowed the SP to be again considered and again not approved.

* *

*IPPD*

In the interim, the IPPD under the chairmanship of the President continued

to meet and decided to establish a number of sub-committees to address

issues of governance. These were sub-committees on Governance, Constitution

and Parliament, and economic issues and the Budget. In contrast to the

parliamentary committees, each party had equal representation. These

sub-committees met with little success and plenary meetings were harder to

organize. The Government has separately documented its efforts to convene

plenary meetings and follow up meetings of the sub-committees.

* *

*2012 Budget*

The 2012 Budget was read by the Minister of Finance, Hon. Dr. Ashni Singh,

on March 30, 2012. The general debate began on April 10, 2012.

As the general debate was drawing to an end and on the eve of the debate on

the Estimates, the

A.F.C. MP Ramjattan and the A.P.N.U. MP Carl Greenidge brought

motions on the night of April 17th, to cut the Budget Sub-Heads for the

employment of contracted workers in the Office of the President, the

Ministries of Education, Housing and Water, Health, Labour, Human Services

and Social Security. The following day, April 18, 500 public servants

including staff from the Parliament Office held peaceful pickets in front

of the Parliament Building against the proposed cuts by the opposition.  These

motions were withdrawn at the April 18th sitting.

A question without notice to the Minister of Finance by an A.P.N.U. Member

of Parliament at the same April 17, 2012 sitting, sought to know whether

the Government would be prepared to meet with the A.P.N.U. with regard to

the 2012 Budget, the Minister replied that the Government would be willing

to meet once the Opposition made available in writing the list of issues it

wished to discuss.

The Government of Guyana (GoG) headed by the President with his delegation

and the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) and Leader of the A Partnership for

National Unity, A.P.N.U., Mr. David Granger, with his delegation held

meetings from April 18-24, 2012 to try to reach agreement on the 11 issues

raised by the LOP in order to reach agreement on 2012 Budget. The then

A.F.C. leader, Mr. Ramjattan, refused at first to be part of the talks and

eventually joined the meetings on April 23, 2012.

At the first meeting convened on April 18, 2012, the Government agreed to

the A.P.N.U.’s proposal for an increase of the monthly rates of the

universal non-contributory Old Age Pension. The Government’s caveat to the

agreement was that it would expect the A.P.N.U. to support the additional

charge of over GY$1 Billion on the Budget. On the said day, the Minister of

Finance announced the increase at the sitting of the National Assembly.

Agreement was reached on April 19, 2012 between the GoG and the A.P.N.U. to

a reduction in the subsidy for electricity supplied to Administrative

Region 10 and specifically to the township of Linden.

The Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, with the full concurrence of the

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger and Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine of

the A.P.N.U., (who were shown a copy of the statement before it was read to

the National Assembly) announced the agreement at the sitting of April 19,

2012.

On the following day, April 20, 2012, leaders of the A.F.C., travelled to

Linden and with A.P.N.U. leaders from the Region opposed any reduction in

the subsidy for electricity. The Leader of the Opposition also travelled to

Linden and at a meeting there reneged on the agreement reached on April 19,

2012.*  *

At the all day April 22, 2012 meeting between the two sides, progress

appeared to have been made and a draft press release was prepared to that

effect.

On the following day, April 23, 2012, A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs tabled

motions to cut the Budget by over GY $ 20 Billion. The draft press release

was not agreed to by the two opposition parties and was never released.

Talks between the two sides on the nights of April 23 and 24, 2012 failed

to reach agreement, and, in fact, reversed what progress was made with the

entrance of the A.F.C delegation. (Please find attached *Appendix 1* *Notes

on meetings between the GOG, APNU and AFC April 18-24, 2012). *

The Opposition motions to reduce the 2012 Budget were tabled and voted on

by majority at the April 25 and 26, 2012 sittings.

The Appropriation Bill for Budget 2012 was passed as amended with massive

cuts of GY $ 20.9 Billion on April 26th 2012. Most telling are those

government agencies which were reduced- the Office of the President, the

Guyana Elections Commission, the Guyana Power and Light, the Ministry of

Finance’s Low Carbon Development Strategy programme, the State Planning

Secretariat, the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) and the Ethnic Relations

Commission, one of 4 constitutional rights commissions.

The Government, in the interim again approached the High Court for a ruling

on the reductions to the 2012 Budget by the opposition parliamentary

political parties. The High Court ruled in the government’s favour stating

that the Opposition-controlled National Assembly acted outside its

constitutional remit in imposing the cuts to the 2012 Budget.

In keeping with the court ruling on the budget cuts, on August 9th, the

Minister of Finance returned to the House requesting approval for

expenditures under supplementary provisions in keeping with the court

order. This attempt was partially successful but this time funding of the

original heads which were reduced on April 25, 2012 for the Office of the

President were reduced to 0.

On this note the recess of first session of the 10th Parliament commenced.

* *

*Opposition Motions*

In this period, the Opposition has brought several motions which have no

legislative effect but which they expect can be used by a majority vote to

change the Guyana Constitution and laws such as the President’s Pension and

Benefits, removal of Service Commissions, the courts, the Guyana Elections

Commission, as budget agencies etc..

A bill entitled The Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill which

both the Attorney General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel have advised

the Speaker is unconstitutional was still allowed to be tabled and is

pending on the Order paper for its second reading.

The most important of these motions and the one which has led to the

Government’s conclusion that parliamentary democracy has been subverted

relates to a “non confidence” motion moved against the Minister of Home

Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. The genesis of this motion goes back to the

reneging of the LOP’s support for the reduction of the subsidy for

electricity supplied to Administrative Region 10 including the township of

Linden. The GoG with a reduced national budget was placed in an invidious

position-with the reduced subsidy for the Guyana Power Limited, the reduced

subsidy for electricity for the Linden township could no longer be avoided.

The GoG announced the introduction of new rates in Region 10 and Linden

which would be effective from July 1st 2012 and which would bring the

tariffs in the community to approximately 50% of what the rest of the

consumers on the grid were paying.

Following the July 18th Linden protest during which 3 persons were fatally

shot, the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) wrote to the Speaker on Saturday

July 20, 2012 to ask for an urgent special sitting to discuss the situation

in Linden and the shootings to death of 3 persons and injuries to several

persons. The Speaker advised that a sitting was scheduled for Wednesday

July 25th and he would allow the LOP to bring an Adjournment Motion on

Matters of Urgent Public Business.

This development was significant as it flew in the face of discussions

between the President and the two opposition parties on July 19th for the

establishment of a Commission on Inquiry into the fatal shootings of 3

protesters and injuries to several and loss of property due to arson, and,

the appointment of plenipotentiaries to draft the Terms of Reference of

this Commission.

The Government learnt that in the early hours of July 25, 2012 the LOP

advised the Speaker by email that he would instead be bringing a “no

confidence” motion for the removal of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr.

Clement Rohee, as a result of the killing of 3 persons on July 18th in

Linden.

The Speaker approved of the LOP’s request to dispense with the relevant

Standing Orders and allowed the “no confidence motion” to be debated

without notice on the same day that it was laid. The Hansard on July

25thdocuments the procedural debated which took place on the floor

regarding allowing a “no confidence motion” to be debated on the same day

that it was laid with no notice to the government or the Minister

concerned. The Speaker allowed the debate to commence and the Government

advised that all of its 34 MPs wished to speak. The debate on that motion

was not concluded on July 25 and continued during the July 30th sitting

concluding at 2:12 am on the morning of July 31, 2012. (Please find

attached *Appendix 11 **Hansard of the July 25th and July 30th 2012 sittings

*).

The GoG submitted amendments to the LOP’s motion on July 30 seeking that

any action against the Minister await the findings of the Commission of

Inquiry. These amendments were rejected by the opposition parties by a

majority vote. ( Please find attached *Appendix 111* *LOP’s motion as

adopted by majority vote and the proposed amendments by the Prime Minister)

*

The LOP then wrote the President and called on him to act in accordance

with this majority parliamentary resolution and remove the Minister of Home

Affairs. Being fully cognizant that the Guyana Constitution does not

provide for such powers in the National Assembly, the rejection of the

opposition parties’ call by the President was not unexpected.

The Attorney General approached the courts in August, 2012 on behalf of

Minister Rohee to declare the “no confidence “motion in violation of the

Guyana Constitution. The court is still to rule.

During the August 2nd sitting of the National Assembly, the Attorney

General announced the Terms of Reference of the Commission of Inquiry which

had been agreed to earlier that day between the Government and the A.P.N.U.

The A.P.N.U. by way of letter had communicated their approval. Regrettably,

on the floor of the National Assembly the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

David Granger, dissociated himself from the joint agreement to announce the

Terms of Reference. The leader of the minor opposition party, the AFC, Mr.

Khemraj Ramjattan denied having been involved. As a result, further

discussions continued on the TORs from that date to August 22nd when

agreement was reached among all three parties.

On August 9, 2012, the Speaker announced that he would seek legal advice as

to whether the National Assembly had the power by way of a majority motion

to make the President remove a Minister.

In the recess period from August 10th to the first sitting on October 22,

2012, agreement was reached by the GoG and the two opposition parties with

regard to the TORs and the composition of the Linden Commission of Inquiry

as stated earlier on August 22, 2012. The Commission was sworn in by the

President under the Commission Act and commenced its work on September 24,

2012.

Noteworthy is that 3 of the 5 Commissioners are non-Guyanese from

neighbouring CARICOM countries who were proposed with the assistance of the

CARICOM Secretary General and approved by the Government and two opposition

parties.

The opposition parties stated publicly that they had proof that the

Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Clement Rohee gave orders to the Guyana Police

Force to shoot the protesters; they based their case on alleged telephone

communication between the Minister and the Commanding Officer on the ground

as well as videos they purported to possess to prove that the police shot

the protesters.

During the COI, the lawyers for the 3 killed and injured, several of them

being APNU M.P.s as well as the new leader of the A.F.C., Mr. Nigel Hughes,

called for phone records to be produced. When these were produced to the

COI, they revealed that the telephone communication between the Minister

and the Commanding Officer took place *after* the time of the shooting;

they were also permitted to produce videos but these did not show as they

had expected the Police shooting nor did CCTV evidence substantiate that

claim. The independent Forensic Expert and Pathologist hired by the A.F.C.

leader /lawyer proved that the bullets that killed the 3 protesters and

injured others were not from police issued weapons or ammunition. ( Please

find attached *Appendix 1V* *Government’s statement to the Linden

Commission of Inquiry on October 30, 2012). *

The Commission called the Minister before it in keeping with the TORs of

the COI; from the verbatim records it appears that the COI was unable to

link the Minister with the shootings. The Commission of Inquiry heard

evidence up to November 2, 2012 and will return in January 2013. The

Commission also requested an extension of the life of the Commission to

February 28, 2013 which was granted by the President.

On October 22, 2012, the first sitting after the conclusion of the recess,

witnessed the opposition parties shouting down the Minister of Home Affairs

when he rose to table the first reading of one of his bills. Ironically the

bill, entitled the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 2012, if passed would bring

Guyana in conformity with some of its international treaty obligations.

The LOP on floor stated that the House by resolution called for the removal

of the Minister as he had lost the confidence of the House, and, therefore

the Minister should not be allowed to speak, table any bills and or make

any request for monies for his sector.

At the November 8, 2012, the Speaker, having received private legal advice

from two leading law firms, made a public ruling that in keeping with the

Guyana Constitution the National Assembly could not remove a Minister nor

could it prevent the Minister as a Member of Parliament from speaking. He,

however, suggested that the opposition consider bringing a substantive

motion. The Opposition shouted down the Speaker and he was forced to

suspend the sitting. The Speaker then summoned the Government and

Opposition Chief Whips to his Chambers; the Opposition Chief Whip Ms Amna

Ally declared that their side would not allow the Minister to speak. On

reconvening a short while later, the Speaker again called on the Minister

to proceed with the 2nd reading of his bill. Again, grave disorder was

created in the House by the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs; they refused to listen

to the Speaker and he adjourned the sitting in accordance with SO 47(9) to

November 22, 2012.( Please find attached *Appendix V **Speaker’s November

8, 2012 ruling) *

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger, following this sitting,

submitted a motion seconded by M.P. Ramjattan of the A.F.C. calling for the

House to “Prevent Honourable Clement Rohee, M.P., Minister of Home Affairs,

from speaking in the National Assembly”.

The Clerk of the National Assembly consulted several parliamentary experts

and advised the Speaker in writing that neither the Speaker nor the

National Assembly had the power to prevent the Minister from speaking as a

Member of Parliament. The Clerk also pointed out that the matter was sub

judice and additionally the motion was in violation of several

constitutional provisions. His arguments were supported by drawing from the

rules and practices of other democratic parliaments. ( Please find attached

*Appendix V1* *Clerk’s written advice to Speaker*).

On November 22, 2012, a few minutes before the sitting was to commence, the

Speaker instructed that the said motion be placed both on a Notice Paper

and on the Supplementary Order Paper for the sitting of the same day.

The November 22, 2012 sitting witnessed a complete subversion of accepted

parliamentary norms, practices and the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders.

The Minister of Home Affairs rose to speak on the second reading of his

bill and the A.P.N.U. M.P. Basil Williams rose to move the suspension of

the Standing Orders to allow Mr. Granger’s motion to be debated. The motion

was improperly and incompletely put and yet was allowed by the Speaker.

Like the “no confidence motion” of July 25th the government was presented

with the motion on the same afternoon and expected to debate it.

Most unusual was the interruption of and suspension of the Standing Orders

in the midst of Government Business in violation of the Standing Orders and

time honoured parliamentary conventions and norms. The A.P.N.U. M.P. forgot

to suspend that Standing Order regarding Government Business taking

precedence but was ably assisted by the Speaker who said that the Member

meant that he was suspending all the Standing Orders. Hours of procedural

arguments took place in the House led by the Government and the A.P.N.U.

MPs.

Despite the facts that the issue of the “no confidence” motion was before

the court and the motion interrupted the second reading of a Government

bill, in order to insert an Opposition motion by way of suspension of the

Standing Orders, the Speaker ruled that:-

(i) The LOP’s motion was “admissible” and “properly before the House” and

“matters raised in that motion are matters which should be referred to the

Committee of Privileges”;

(ii) The second reading of the Minister’s Firearms (Amendment) Bill would

not be allowed to be proceeded with pending a report of the Committee of

Privileges;

(iii)”While the matter resides with the Committee of Privileges, l

recognize the right of Mr. Rohee to address the House. Any bill that comes

or is initiated by him, l will not recognize”

iv) The LOP’s “motion is extant; it is valid; it is pending. It has been

referred to the Committee of Privileges. On report of that Committee, you

can debate the motion…”

(v) The Committee of Privileges would be convened shortly. (Please find

attached *Appendix V11* *Speaker’s November 22, 2012 ruling*)

The sitting was then adjourned for December 17, 2012.

The Speaker’s ruling shocked not only the Government but many members of

civil society and the public.

The Government insisted and continues to insist that no prima facie case

had been made that the Minister and a Member of Parliament has committed

neither any breach of privilege nor any offense against the dignity of the

Parliament. Furthermore, the usurpation of the Government Business on the

Order paper was unheard of and unprecedented.

Most disturbing was that the Speaker by his ruling to prevent an M.P. from

speaking overturned his own ruling on November 8, 2012 and allowed the

opposition parties to succeed with their publicly declared agenda of

“gagging” the Minister as a Member of Parliament.

It is significant to note that prior to this sitting, the Leader of the

Opposition had publicly declared that the A.P.N.U. were mulling over how to

“get rid of Rohee”. This statement triggered a letter to the Speaker from

the Government cautioning about such statements and the Minister’s safety.

The Speaker made light of this in his response saying that the LOP was an

honourable man and he was sure no harm to the Minister’s person was meant.

The Attorney General immediately approached the High Court on November 27,

2012 to seek a ruling and a declaration that the decision and ruling of the

Speaker that the motion, presented by LOP David Granger to the National

Assembly on November 22, 2012 prohibiting Minister Rohee from speaking and

not recognizing him as a Minister of Home Affairs, was unlawful and

unconstitutional. He is also seeking a ruling from the court that the

Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine any

issue remitted to it by virtue of the said ruling of the Speaker. The court

is being asked to set aside, vacate, quash or rescind the decision and or

ruling of the Speaker that the motion presented by LOP Granger prohibiting

Minister Rohee from speaking is unlawful and unconstitutional as an elected

member of the National Assembly but also an appointed Minister of the

Government pursuant to the Constitution and laws of Guyana.

* *

*Events beyond the National Assembly.*

In addition to the developments outlined in this document, the Government

has been challenged with politically-driven disturbances organized and lead

by extreme and fringe elements of the A.P.N.U. and the A.F.C. and other

bodies to create political instability and reverse the gains that Guyana

has made.

* *

*Government of Guyana talks with the opposition parliamentary parties *

*Linden Disturbances (July 18- August 22, 2012)*

Please refer to the detailed Government’s submission to the Linden

Commission of Inquiry October 30, 2012 attached as *Appendix 1V *which

chronicles the events and extensive efforts by the Government with the

opposition parties and the Region 10 Chairman and other leaders to restore

normalcy.

The Government wishes to emphasis that the prolonged period of 36 days of

protest and occupation of township which severed the country into two would

not have been possible without the complicity of the leaders of the two

opposition parties to not tone down the rhetoric and call off the protests

as well as the advocacy and misinformation spread by certain media and

social networking sites, all linked to the opposition parties or known

advocates of these political parties.

Following the August 22, 2012 signed agreement between the Government, at a

public meeting on August 24, 2012 which was addressed by A.P.N.U. and

A.F.C. leaders in Linden, the following was stated:-

Reverend Morian, A.P.N.U. M.P., disclosed that the struggle continued and

encouraged persons to stay mobilized for instructions from the Chairman’s

office. He went on to say that once the “government refused to release

monies for development purposes in the Region the protest will continue”.

Mr. Solomon, Regional Chairman and A.P.N.U. member, stated that “the

struggle was not over until implementations were seen and residents must be

prepared to take to the streets in their thousands within two weeks if the

government failed to commence implementing the agreements. He disclosed

that he had spoken with some top brass military commanders who mentioned

that it would have been the first time that the military was so extended

within a community …from his intelligence over 400 military officers were

deployed to Linden… he posited that *Lindeners would now be better prepared

to deal with the Joint Services should the need occur.”*

It is a moot point that the misinformation presented to the public

following the signing of the agreement by Mr. Solomon was debunked by the

Joint Services own statement to the COI.

At a recent public meeting in the month of November in Linden addressed by

the LOP and members of A.P.N.U., exhortations were made for the community

to be prepared for the possibility of “pepperpot protests (ppp) in December

and in to the new year”.

* *

*Agricola*

On the evening of October 8, 2012, the A.F.C. leadership at a press

conference issued an ultimatum to the President to remove the Minister of

Home Affairs within 48 hours.

On October 11th, 2012, on the East Bank Highway in the vicinity of Agricola

village, protesters, some imported from outside the community, blocked the

main thoroughfare into and out of the capital city, Georgetown, with

connections to two other regions at rush hour. Vehicles and debris were

used to block the highway on all 4 lanes and fires were set. Thousands of

commuters including school children were trapped in a small area with no

way to turn. Citizens were attacked and robbed and hundreds of vehicles

were unable to move for over 7 hours. Thousands of citizens, including

school children, who lived across the Demerara River walked back to

Georgetown to try to reach the boats at the Ferry stelling and were also

robbed. The Police were physically assaulted and abused by the protesters.

The A.F.C. was the key instigator of this disturbance and when exposed both

the LOP, the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. blamed the Police and the Minister of Home

Affairs.

Again on October 15th and 16th, at rush hour, the protesters attempted to

block the highway again and succeeded in blocking 2 of the 4 lanes. This

resulted in the backing up of traffic where some vehicles were attacked and

damaged by protesters. The Police again were abused but situation was

finally brought under control.

The public have been angered by this extremist behavior and have condemned

such action.

The Linden disturbances and the Agricola protests are disturbing

indications of the level of extremism and irresponsible and reckless

leadership that is taking over the political environment in Guyana.

* *

*Role of the Social Media*

Another most ominous development has arisen in this period whereby Guyanese

citizens are being targeted for their political persuasion and their

ethnicity. Incitement to violence against Guyanese of Indian descent (the

largest ethnic minority) was being promoted on social media such as *Facebook

*and *Twitter.*

Elements of the media supportive of the opposition parties were also

involved in the incitement of racial hostility and the spread of

misinformation.  For instance, on one of the influential online media

outlet *Demerara Waves*, a blog posting calling for the mass murder of

Guyanese citizens of Indian descent was not blocked or removed.* **  *

An internet radio owned by Mark Benschop, a man who was charged for treason

for the assault on the Office of the President in 2002 and who was

subsequently pardoned by the President in 2009, also posted race hate and

misinformation.

Both online media outlets are responsible for the violence and burnings

which erupted in Linden in the early hours of August 10 when they

misinformed Lindeners that the Joint Services were in Linden and instructed

by the President “to shoot to kill.”

A list of supporters with their photographs of the governing party from the

Linden area was circulated online in order to facilitate the targeting of

these persons during the Linden protests. Most were forced to go into

hiding. The Headquarters of the PPP in Linden was attacked and partially

burnt and properties of party members were robbed. One of the female

supporters found that her photograph, address, telephone number and her

young child were posted on *Facebook* and labeled a PPP informant.

Even at this time of writing, the blog sites and websites of known

opposition personalities such as *OneVoicecanWin* and *Brutalfacts** *continue

to try to fuel and create more “Lindens” and “openly call for the

government to be brought to its knees.”

Fanning the flames of ethnic insecurities and promoting racial hostility

and racial hatred and conflict are particularly reprehensible in a

multi-ethnic society such as Guyana which has made steady progress over the

years in overcoming the bitter legacy of racial antagonism which was sown

in earlier times.

* *

*The internationalization of developments in Guyana*

The July 18 killing of 3 protesters was brought to the attention of the

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) which made a public

release on August 3rd, the GoG publicly responded on August 8th to the

IACHR.

Due to the gravity of these developments, the Government requested and was

permitted to brief the OAS Permanent Council on August 23, 2012 and

indicated to that body that it “is deeply concerned about this new

political environment and the behavior of the official parliamentary

parties and fringe elements following the November 28 2011 elections, and

is thereby warning that the situation in Guyana is precarious and one that

warrants close attention by our friends in the OAS.”(Please find

attached *Appendix

V111 **Government’s statement to the Permanent Council of the Organization

of American States on August 23, 2012)*

* *

*Conclusion*

These developments in the Guyana National Assembly over the last 11 months

are at their least disturbing and worrying, however, they become more

sinister when taken holistically with the consistent undermining and

subversion of parliamentary democracy based on “the dictatorship of one”

and repeated declarations of the “new dispensation” by the two opposition

parties that their supporters are the majority and they must have their day.

Examined together with the Linden disturbances (July 18-August 22, 2012),

the Agricola protests ( October 11, 15 and 16, 2012), and continuous

attempts to have similar such road blockages in other areas (which in

contrast have had little success thus far), threats of more protests, the

targeting of ethnic groups and threats against individuals in Government

and anyone who publicly defends the Government in the social media, the

Government of Guyana by way of this document is convinced that Guyana is

under threat.

It is therefore again warning, as it did the OAS Permanent Council,

friendly international and regional organizations that the developments in

the National Assembly and the wider society in Guyana are subverting

parliamentary democracy and posing a serious and real threat to political

stability.

The Guyana Government calls on your organization to monitor and to consider

what statements and postures it may wish to make in support of the

protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a

democratically elected government.