A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge has dismissed President Donald Ramotar’s justification for withholding assent to two Bills passed in January by the majority Opposition and promises that action will be taken.
One day following the President’s writing to the Speaker of the National Assembly informing that the Bills were not going to enjoy presidential assent, Greenidge who piloted the two Bills – the Fiscal Management and Accounta-bility (Amendment) Bill 2012 and the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 ex-pressed his disagreement.
“There is no technical merit in the President’s justification [for withholding assent to the Bills.
The reasons he gave are unacceptable,” Greenidge said.
With regards to the Fiscal Management and Accounta-bility (Amendment) 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.
The President said the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2012 passed on January 25, 2013, Ramotar “takes away the vested rights and it is a denial of a legitimate expectation.”
He said that 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.
He said too that the Bill is a violation of a former President’s constitutional right to work under Article 149 A and is also a violation of the presumption of innocence “which is guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 144 of the Constitution.”
Greenidge yesterday summed up his assessment of the President’s letters to the Speaker saying that it was not entirely unexpected.
“We are extremely unhappy but not surprised given what he had declared about not supporting any Opposition legislation. One is left to ask what future is there for the country if the President is only prepared to sign Bills that the Government prepares,” he said.
“You don’t need a Parliament if that is how the Government operates,” he said.
He said that the Opposition parties will now have to decide what they will do as a result of the stance taken by the President.
Calling the situation nonsensical and non-viable, Greenidge said that the Opposition parties must now consider what measures they take, and that these may include extra-parliamentary actions.
Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman in a letter to the President on Friday seeking an update on the status of the Bills, said that the Bills were sent to him since February, according to records supplied by Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs. He reminded the President that the constitutional deadline for action on the pieces of legislation had passed. Trotman pointed to 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.
However, in the President’s letter, he said that he received the two Bills on May 3, 2013. When asked about this, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, to whom the Bills were delivered prior to being sent on to the President, said that the time elapsed as the Bills were sent to the printers and for research to be done with regards to why the President should not assent.
Asked why it was that the Appropriation Bill for the 2013 budget had already been given presidential assent, he said that unlike the two Opposition Bills, the budget-related one was “straightforward.”
Efforts to reach the Alliance For Change for a comment on the presidential non-assent of the Bills proved futile.
