Minister of Local Government Ganga Persaud’s revocation of a 1983 Order that had allowed Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) to oversee Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) is a “retrograde” step and goes against the grain of what the parties are trying to achieve through local government reform, representatives from the opposition parties have said.
The move which was only recently revealed has drawn the ire of various actors in the political arena. Minister within the local government ministry, Norman Whittaker when asked about the rationale for the revocation of the authority, had explained that decentralisation of the authority to RDCs was intended to provide more opportunity for leaders at the local level to be part of decision-making on matters that contribute to people’s development, but this has been “abused.”
The revocation was publicly disseminated after Whittaker met with Region Ten officials earlier this month in an unsuccessful effort to stave off efforts by citizens to hold elections for a community council. The residents had opposed a government-appointed Interim Management Committee. After the meeting, in a letter to Region Ten Chairman Sharma Solomon, Whittaker had warned that under the Local Democratic Organs Act and the Local Government Act, neither Solomon nor the RDC had any authority to facilitate the polls.
Whittaker further pointed to the July 2012 Ministerial Order by Persaud, which revoked the delegated authority that was granted by the previous government to RDCs in 1983 by the then Minister of National Mobilisation, which had allowed an RDC to oversee the NDCs operating within its geographic area. He said the revocation had brought all NDCs under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development and its duly authorised personnel.
The representatives of the opposition political parties said that they were unaware at the time of the revocation that the action had been taken.
When contacted, Chairman of the main opposition party, APNU, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine said that the revocation of the Order is a retrograde step. “It goes against the grain of what we are attempting to do” in terms of local government reform, he said. He explained that the reforms would see more autonomy being granted to local government bodies such as NDCs, and the move by the ministry is against the grain of what the Constitution intends and strikes at the core of the local government reform laws that the parties are working on. The reforms are intended to enhance and not deprive local government bodies of autonomy, Roopnaraine stressed. “The government and ministry are on a very retrograde step in relation to local government,” he said, adding that he was very surprised by the move and they were not notified of it. An Order should have come to the National Assembly, he said.
However, Whittaker said that an Order does not have to go to Parliament. “The minister can pass such an order. It doesn’t have to go to parliament,” he said. While he could not say whether the opposition political parties were notified, he pointed out that it was published in the Official Gazette which is a publicly available document. “It would have been in the Gazette,” he said.
Meantime, AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan also came out against the revocation and said that he too was unaware of the action. He argued that the power should have remained with the RDC rather than in the hands of central government. He pointed out that the RDC would have institutional capacity, memory and understanding of the issues in that particular area. ‘It ought not to be lightly taken away from the RDC,” he emphasized. “They are the best people to deal with local issues.”
Ramjattan conceded that while in exceptional circumstances – for example, if the local authority is corrupt or inept in performing their duties – it would have been a different scenario. He said that abuse of power would be a reason for the revocation of this power from a local government body, but the minister would have to show evidence.
He charged that the revocation showed the political motivation of the PPP. “They want back control and it would reflect what I call the control freakism of the PPP,” he said.
Further, Ramjattan said that as far as he knows, a Ministerial Order should have come to the National Assembly. “All Orders must be laid in parliament,” he said. The attorney said that it can be approved in two ways: by negative resolution whereby once the Order is laid and there is no objection, it automatically becomes law and by affirmative resolution where the Order has to be affirmed by the assembly.
However, he noted that if it was a Ministerial Directive then this power resides in the minister and is not required to be brought to the National Assembly. Ramjattan said it is not clear whether the original order was passed through the parliament or if it was an order simply made by the minister at the time. If it was the latter, he said, “He has the power to give, he has the power to take it back.” He added that it would be expected that it would not be lightly taken back. “When they are taking away the powers of the RDC and bestowing it on the minister… it is not something that should be lightly done,” he said.
