The contentious Legal Practitioner’s Amendment Bill was sent to a Select Committee last night after forceful objections from the opposition benches which united to reject the provision that would empower the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) head to issue practice certificates for attorneys.
The tone of the debate indicated opposition support for some regulation of the legal profession, which some speakers said was long delayed, but a few prickly issues arose to push the debate into lengthy arguments about the real intentions of the legislation.
Government speakers called the amendments necessary and sought to debunk contentions about hidden agendas and possible state control of the legal community, but opposition speakers questioned “the rush to pass it” while condemning the inclusion of the provision which empowers the Commissioner General of the GRA to assess lawyers based on their tax returns before issuing a certificate for them to practice.
Attorney-General Charles Ramson, who moved the bill in the house, said it suffered from ill-informed opinions peddled in the press within recent weeks. He referred to newspaper articles “which popped up” saying people need only follow the information flowing from those “who understand what is happening” to realize that there is no need for controversy. “The mistrust would disappear,” Ramson asserted as he hailed the legislation as merely seeking to institutionalize the work of professionals in the field.
The mistrust of which Ramson spoke was referred to by the opposition speakers who called the inclusion of the provision empowering the Commissioner General as discriminatory and as Alliance For Change (AFC) Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan termed it, “unconstitutional and immoral”. Ramjattan went further to say it was a clandestine insertion, adding that his party would support the legislation should the government drop this controversial provision.
Rule 15 sub-rule two of the bill is the prickly section which was heatedly debated yesterday. It says that an attorney-at-law shall not practice as an attorney-at-law unless he has been issued a practice certificate by the Commissioner General in accordance with the provisions of Section 39, Cap: 80:01 of the Tax Act. This section was summed up by government speakers as “nothing new” and many argued that attorneys are required by law to file annual tax returns.
The issue of whether government consulted with attorneys prior to introducing the bill in the assembly was also debated and Ramson firmly stated that he had personally sent a copy to the Guyana Bar Association for its input and received no response. However, PNCR MP Clarissa Riehl said consultations within the legal community at large were seriously lacking.
Speaking to what she termed an important feature of any bill that affects the lives of attorneys, Riehl said only a select few seniors and the association were consulted last year when a draft bill was circulated. “One could not have a grouse here today had this been done,” Riehl stated and according to her, the Bar Association did respond to a request for input last year with concerns of its own in addition to making several proposals. She referred to the provision involving the Commissioner General as the most “vexed aspect” of the bill, noting that it has serious consequences.
“…To deny an attorney the right to practice under the guise of professional misconduct is a direct breach of a citizen’s fundamental right to work,” Riehl contended. She called it an unwarranted intrusion on the part of the Commissioner General, adding that no other profession in the country is subjected to such a measure. Further, she argued that the rule can be misused if a person is not politically favoured.
Speaking in support of the government, MP Moses Nagamootoo said Riehl’s presentation on the bill gave the impression that it is something to fear and that attorneys will “be raided by an unconscionable Commis-sioner General”. He contended that attorneys have the right to work, but that it is not an automatic right because they are required to pass the bar before practicising. He said the arguments on the Commissioner General were part of the debate which distracts from the reform which is before the assembly.
Other speakers on the bill included PPP MPs Anil Nandlall and Dharamkumar Seeraj and PNCR MP Basil Williams.
In the explanatory memorandum of the Legal Amendment Practitioner’s Bill it is stated that the legislation is seeking to enhance the regulation of the legal profession and to strengthen the powers of the Legal Practitioners Committee in relation to the discipline of attorneys-at-law.
