Although the two recently-passed bills piloted by the opposition were partially vetted by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel at the Legal Affairs Ministry, Attorney General Anil Nandlall has said they have not crossed his desk for input.
Nandlall had said last weekend that the Fiscal Management and Accountability Amendment Bill and the President’s Benefits and Other Facilities Amendment Bill had not to his knowledge been sent to the Attorney General’s Chambers for the necessary documentation to be prepared.
But Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs indicated on Monday that up to January 31, both bills had been sent to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel at the Attorney General’s Chambers.
“It first goes to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and then to me. But [the two bills] have not reached my desk for my input,” Nandlall clarified yesterday.
Isaacs, in a letter to APNU MP Carl Greenidge, who piloted the legislation, said that the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill, which was passed on January 10, was submitted to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel on January 14, 2013 for vetting, returned on January 28, and submitted with corrections made to National Printers on January 29, for assent copies to be printed. He said assent copies were collected from National Printers on February 1 and were submitted to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs yesterday for his assent certificate to be issued.
On the Former Presidents Benefits and Other Facilities Bill, Isaacs said that the bill was passed on Friday January 25 and sent to National Printers on January 28, for amendments to be inserted. He added that the bill was then collected from National Printers on January 30, and submitted to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel on January 31, 2013 for vetting, before being returned on Monday with the errors pointed out. It was sent to National Printers to be corrected, he said.
Article 170 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana requires the President, who is part of Parliament, to assent to bills presented to him following passage in the National Assembly. This article also states that where the president withholds his assent, he must return the bill to the Speaker within 21 days with a message stating the reasons for withholding his assent.
Nandlall’s description of the Attorney General’s role in the process prompted criticism by attorney Christopher Ram, who noted that it was not catered for in any law.
However, Nandlall said it was convention for the Attorney General’s Chambers to issue an assent certificate to bills passed by the National Assembly before they are forwarded to the president. All bills passed by the House are to be sent to the Chambers of the Attorney General by the Clerk of the National Assembly, firstly to be examined by the Chief Parliamen-tary Counsel and then by the Attorney General, who issues an assent certificate advising the President, that he may properly assent to the bill, “provided, of course, that in the opinion of the Attorney General, the bill is in order,” he explained.
Isaacs substantiated this position by indicating that during his tenure he has never submitted any bill for presidential assent without an assent certificate from the Attorney General.
Former Clerk of the National Assembly Frank Narain said yesterday that in his time during pre-independence, bills passed went to the Attorney General before they went to the governor for assent. “That was the practice… the Attorney General would vet the bill, not to make any changes, just to see that it was [in order]. Then he would issue an assent certificate. But we have had several changes over the years and the Attorney General has become a politician,” said Narain.
He said that because of the peculiar nature of the parliamentary configuration, the Clerk of the National Assembly is placed in a very precarious position.
He added that the Standing Orders of the National Assembly specify that bills are required to be submitted to the president for assent, with no mention made of the Attorney General.
Meanwhile, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman yesterday said that a proposal for an in-house legal officer for the National Assembly is before the Parliamentary Management Committee. But he said that with such a person being at Parliament, it does not mean that there is no role for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. “It is a matter of concern for all parties of the Parliament,” he said, while noting that he recently met persons from the Legal Services Department of the UK House of Commons and had discussions with them as to how such an office would function. “This is a matter that the National Assembly is pursuing….the office will serve all, offering general advice and assisting with drafting,” he said, noting that the person would not be serving one side of the House and not the other.
He said that the National Assembly since last year recognised that there is a need for this office and discussions have been taking place since then. “Soon we will be moving in that direction,” said Trotman.
Asked whether there will still be a role for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel with the new position taken up, Trotman said, “I believe that there should always be a role for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.”
