The National Assembly last evening passed an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a number of agencies to become financially independent and free from possible Government influence.
But Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall vowed to advise the President not to assent to it.
The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2013 pertains to the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission, Public Service Appellate Tribunal, the Public Procurement Commission, Office of the Ombudsman and the Guyana Elections Commission.
Speaking on the Bill, AFC Member of Parliament Khemraj Ramjattan said that the financial independence of a number of agencies now considered budget agencies is necessary for their work to be considered independent.
He said that the work of the Audit Office must be independent. He said that the placing of these agencies as budget agencies is part of government’s “control freakism.”
“When you could control the purse strings you control the thinking of the agency,” he said.
“If we don’t (amend) we could have a flawed Constitution,” he said. He said that independent entities should be more than what is included here,” he said. “The DPP and Public Service Commission should be included here,” Ramjattan said.
He said that the Minister of Finance removed the Audit Office from being a budget agency because he recognised that it was wrong for it to be so considered.
In defence of the Government, Attorney General Nandlall said that Government has been accused of fighting against conferring autonomy on entities and said that the record would reflect differently.
“We have passed a series of legislation creating entities. We used the Public Corporations Act to establish public corporations such as New Guyana Marketing Corporation and the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation. We are committed to judicial independence under the constitution.
Further, Nandlall argued that there must be a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution or there could be a constitutional crisis in the making. “I will have to advise His Excellency to withhold his assent,” he said.
In responding to the arguments by the Government, Carl Greenidge – the mover of the Bill – said that the issues captured under Article 222 of the Constitution are separate and severable. He said that Article 222 A is specific to the independence of the agencies.
He challenged the Government to show where the block vote is for the judiciary and the Chamber of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
He said that the actions that the Bill seeks to bring about should have been brought about since the passage of an Opposition Motion on the same issue last year.
Greenidge said that the Bill has been the subject of a number of exchanges before recalling that when it was laid for the first reading there were a number interventions and prior to that the House had passed a motion to remedy certain deficiencies including in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act regarding the range of commissions.
During his presentation he said that the Constitution lists a number of agencies and treats them as deserving of being independent to carry out the functions expected of them.
While listing a number of entities which he said are important constitutionally, Greenidge noted that they are important in protection of rights, either as individual citizens or bodies such as public service employees and policemen.
He pointed out in Article 222 (A) the third schedule only lists the Ethnic Relations Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Women and Gender Equality Commission, Indigenous Peoples’ Commission, the Rights of the Child Commission, the judiciary and the Office of the Auditor General.
He said that his constitutional amendment seeks to add the other entities to Schedule Three in keeping with “their treatment in the body of the Constitution itself.”
Greenidge emphasized that on the first reading of the Bill, Nandlall had cited an agreement between the two sides in relation to deferring consideration of this matter to a tripartite committee. He said that this committee has met on a number of occasions and nothing has been resolved.
“Since the Government had indicated in our deliberations on March 23, 2012 that they recognize the inconsistency that is reflected in the constitution then they should do the decent thing, join us now in ensuring that the principle of independence of these every critical agencies…and their standing be formally enshrined in the Constitution in accordance with the original intension of the Constitution…,” he said.
