A proposal for the National Assembly to have its own legal office will soon go before the Parliamentary Management Committee with both opposition and government indicating support for this move, says Speaker Raphael Trotman.
“There is agreement on both sides that the National Assembly needs its own legal office,” the Speaker told Stabroek News yesterday. The joint opposition, APNU and AFC, which hold an unprecedented one-seat majority in the National Assembly have called for Parliament to have its own legal office, particularly after Attorney General Anil Nandlall made it clear that his office would not be providing assistance to them in terms of the drafting of Bills.
The issue came further into the spotlight when two opposition Bills passed by the House were sent to the Attorney General for an “assent certificate”- a procedure that was criticised by several commentators including APNU spokesman on Finance Carl Greenidge who said it is neither a legal nor constitutional requirement. Subsequently, Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs told Stabroek News that he would seek legal advice on the sending of bills and other material to the AG following approval by the National Assembly after criticisms that doing so was “inappropriate”.
Trotman told this newspaper yesterday that the Clerk had received advice but declined to reveal the nature of the advice. However, he revealed that a proposal for the establishment of a legal office at Parliament has been prepared.
He said that the document, which was developed by the Clerk, has to go to the Parliamentary Management Committee and it is on the agenda for consideration after the 2013 Budget debate is concluded.
All committee business has been suspended for the duration of the consideration of the budget.
“We’re looking at an office rather than an officer,” Trotman said pointing out that they would have to have Public Service Commission permission as well as look at salaries, office space, furnishings and resources such as books. “All of that is in the proposal,” he said. The Speaker added that both sides of the House have indicated support for such an office.
Greenidge in February had urged the relocation of the Parliamentary Counsel from the AG chambers and had also urged Isaacs to reconsider the procedure currently employed for the submission of bills to the President to be signed into law saying that it is the Clerk’s obligation and responsibility to dispatch the Bill to the President and it is for the President to secure the timely advice of his AG and anyone else he deems fit within the time limit stipulated for his consideration of the Bill and its signature.
In a previous letter in response to concerns by Greenidge about the two bills in his name passed by the National Assembly, Isaacs had explained that in the absence of Legal Counsel in the Parliament Office, all bills are sent to the Attorney General’s Chambers to ensure that they are properly drafted before they are submitted to the President for assent. “I have never submitted any bill to the President without an assent certificate from the Attorney General,” Isaacs, who has served as Clerk for more than 10 years, wrote in the letter.
The explanation came even as Nandlall said that it has been parliamentary convention for his office to certify bills passed by the National Assembly for presidential assent.
As it relates to the sending of Bills to the AG chambers, Trotman said that the Speaker has no role in terms of the transmission of the Bill from the National Assembly to the Office of the President and this is the sole preserve of the Clerk.
Once the Bills have been transmitted however, it is a different matter, the Speaker said. “I will engage the Office of the President once it gets there,” he said.
