President Donald Ramotar yesterday wrote Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman formally notifying him that he has withheld his assent to the Fiscal Management and Accounta-bility (Amend-ment) Bill 2012 and the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 passed via the opposition’s one-seat majority.
The President said that both of the bills were unconstitutional.
Trotman had on Friday written to the President seeking an update on whether the President had assented to the Bills, noting that the Bill were sent to him since February.
However the letters from the President to Trotman said that Ramotar received the Bills only on Friday May 3, 2013. This is likely to be a major source of contention in the chain of custody of the bills as if Ramotar had received them in February he would clearly be in violation of the constitutional framework for responding to Parliament.
The two letters from the President to Trotman dated yesterday and seen by this newspaper addressed both Bills, laying out the reasons why they could not be assented to. With regards to the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amend-ment) Bill passed on January 10, 2013, the President said that this Bill was violative of several articles of the Constitution.
“Please be informed that I hereby withhold my assent to the Bill at caption pursuant to Article 170 (3) of the Constitution and I set out hereunder my reasons for so doing: (i) The Bill is in violation of Article 171 (2) of the Constitution Cap. 1:01; it cannot be introduced into the National Assembly by a private member. It can only be introduced with the consent of the Cabinet signified by a Minister;
(ii) Section 82 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, Cap. 73:02, states that the Minister may, by Order, amend the Schedule; it is therefore, wrong to amend the Schedule by an Act of Parliament,” the President wrote in his letter.
“In my opinion, the Bill is violative of the Constitution and by virtue of Article 8 of the Constitution, is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect,” he said.
On why he withheld assent to the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 passed on January 25, 2013, Ramotar said this Bill “takes away the vested rights and it is a denial of a legitimate expectation.”
He said, “The Bill is in violation of the Article 142 of the Constitution, Cap 1:01, which prohibits the taking away of property compulsorily without prompt payment of compensation; although the term ‘natural children’ may be vague, it is a clear statement that certain categories of children are excluded from the benefits afforded by the Bill; this is a violation of the Status of Children Act 2009 and Articles 38B, 38D, 149 and 149 E of the Constitution.”
The President said that Clause 4 of APNU MP Carl Greenidge’s Former Presidents Bill disallows a former President from engaging in business, trade or paid employment and “is a violation of a former President’s constitutional right to work under Article 149 A.”
The letter said too that Clause 4 of the Bill which states that a former President shall cease to be entitled to the benefits were he or she to be cited by any court for any criminal offence is a violation of the presumption of innocence “which is guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 144 of the Constitution.”
Again the President said that the Bill was in his opinion violative of the Constitution, null and void and of no effect.
The Speaker in the letter, which Stabroek News has seen, also reminded the President that the time by which the legislation should have either received presidential assent or rejection had passed.
The letter was copied to Prime Minister Sam Hinds, Leader of the Opposition David Granger, Leader of the Alliance For Change Khemraj Ramjattan and Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs.
“I refer to the matter of Bills – Fiscal Management & Accountability (Amendment) Bill, No. 24 of 2012 and the Former Presidents (Facilities and Other Benefits) Bill No. 29 of 2012 – sent to your Office for assent as required by Article 170 of the Constitution. These Bills, as I am reliably informed by the Clerk, were transmitted to your Office on [February 25, 2013]. Undoubtedly, the constitutionally mandated time for their assent has elapsed,” said Trotman in the letter.
“I am, as you would hopefully understand, anxious to ensure that there is strict compliance with the constitutional requirements regarding the passage of legislation. I respectfully reiterate that the Parliament, comprising the Executive and National Assembly, must work together to ensure that laws are made for the ‘peace, order and good government of Guyana’,” he said.
“I make bold to say that the framers of our Constitution never contemplated, or intended, for these institutions to be working against the interest of each other. I posit that if there is disquiet, discomfort, or disagreement with any Bill, or any aspect thereof, then these need to be resolved in a mutually acceptable manner so that the respective constitutional roles and responsibilities of the National Assembly, and Executive, can be observed and discharged,” said the Speaker.
He reminded the President of the provisions of Article 170 (3) of the Constitution, which states that the President shall return the Bill to the Speaker within “twenty-one days of the date when it was presented to him for assent”. He said, “In my estimation, our Constitution does expect the assent within [21 days], and in the event that it is withheld, the Bill is returned with reasons for its non-assent.”
Early in his tenure, Ramotar had signalled that he would not assent to bills that were passed without the support of the executive. He had said in an interview with NCN that the opposition’s one-seat majority would not result in the passage of bills unless the executive – government – had had input in them. “That is not the function of the opposition. They must respect what is their role… I am making it very clear that I will not assent to any bill that they carry unless it is with the full agreement of the Executive and the full involvement of the Executive,” Ramotar was quoted as saying in a report on the interview by the Government Information Agency (GINA). This position attracted public criticism.
With the bills languishing for months, questions have also been asked about what the legislature was doing about the apparent breach of the constitution by the President. In contrast to the two bills, the budget appropriations bill which was passed by Parliament long after has already been assented to by Ramotar.
The Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill 2012 was aimed at securing the independence and autonomy of the courts and the service commissions by ensuring that they are funded by a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund rather than by an allocation from the government. It had been bitterly opposed by the government.
The Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 was similarly divisive. It aimed to repeal an earlier Act which had been introduced under the administration of former President Bharrat Jagdeo. He had been severely criticised over the last two years for engineering a bill with sumptuous benefits for him and other former presidents.
The mover of the bill, former Finance Minister Greenidge had said that the purpose for bringing the bill to the house was to ensure that there was a common understanding of what needed to be corrected. He noted that the “Former President’s Benefits and Other Facilities Bill” seeks to remedy the deficiencies in the 2009 Act.
He said that the quantum of the President’s benefits is exceptionally generous and needs to be revised.
Ramotar’s rejection of the two bills comes days after he assented to the budget appropriation bill. Observers say it appears that he withheld saying anything about the two opposition bills to avoid any risk to the passage of the budget bill. Ramotar had said on several occasions that the two opposition bills were not on his desk despite their transmission to his office in February.
When the President refuses assent to a bill, it shall not be presented again to him unless within six months of the bill being returned a motion passed by two-thirds of the members of the assembly resolves that it be sent to him again.
