In the interest of transparency and good governance, President Bharrat Jagdeo needs to explain the constitutional mechanism he used to extend the term of the commissioners of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
So said PNCR Chairman and PNCR-1G MP Winston Murray who told Stabroek News in an interview that “There is no provision in the constitution for the President’s involvement in extending the life of the commission.”
He added, “No one, including the President or the Office of the President, has any authority which transcends the constitution, and the National Assembly itself cannot pass a motion which violates the constitution.”
“The life of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) is effectively at an end,” he said, noting that the current commission, led by Chairman Juan Edghill, and which is meeting with groups, is doing so but without the required constitutional mandate.
He said the unconstitutionality of motions put forward by the appointive committee (Committee of Appointments) on the reconstitution of the ERC, so far, was the main reason for the PNCR-1G not supporting them in the past even though errors to this effect had been pointed out to the committee which also includes three PNCR-1G MPs. The non-support from the PNCR-1G led to the expiry of the term of the commissioners.
Asked whether one of the reasons why the PNCR-1G was not supportive of the reconstitution of the ERC was because the party did not want Bishop Edghill as the Chairman of the ERC, Murray said, “The PNCR was not, and is not against the reconstitution of the ERC. Not at all!”
He said that whether the party supports a candidate, or not, should not interfere with the legal procedure that must be adhered to.
The life of the ERC commissioners came to an end on August 31, 2007 and the President on September 6, 2007 announced the re-appointment of the commissioners until consensus could be reached in parliament for consulting on new appointments.
Though the Government Information Agency (GINA) had carried the President’s announcement that the term of the commissioners would continue beyond the August 31 deadline, the state agency did not say what mechanism the President had used to extend the term.
The President’s intervention followed a meeting with representatives of the ERC’s constituencies to decide on a way forward following the parliamentary impasse on the appointment of commissioners prior to parliament going into recess on August 10, 2007.
Regarding what mechanism the President had used to extend the term of the commissioners, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon had said that it was out of necessity and following the parliamentary motion asking him to intervene. He said that the President had summoned a meeting with the stakeholders, including the commissioners and those who had put forward the names of the commissioners to serve in the first place, to ensure that there was general agreement for them to continue in office in the interim.
The PPP/C and the AFC have blamed the main opposition PNCR-1G for the commissioners not being named and for the failure of other rights commissions not being established.
Murray reiterated that the original motion brought to the National Assembly by Prime Minister Sam Hinds on May 10, 2007 sought to have it determine the entities to be consulted and from which members would be appointed to the ERC in accordance with Article 212 B (1) (a) of the Constitution. That motion further resolved that the number of nominees for each group of entities be one member from the Christian religion, one from the Hindu religion, one from the Muslim religion, one from the trades unions, one from the private sector organizations, one from the youth organizations and one from the women’s organizations.
The motion had also sought to expand the list of consulted entities for nominating members from 117 to 162. The PNCR-1G opposed the motion because the final clause in the motion’s schedule contravened the constitution. Murray said that unless there was an amendment to the constitution, the motion as it was printed was in breach of Article 212 (b) of the constitution. This was pointed out to the appointive committee.
Murray said that the PNCR “has to stick with the formula
