Attorney General Anil Nandlall stated yesterday that President Donald Ramotar was not a mere rubber stamp of parliamentary processes and acted “within constitutionally prescribed parameters” when he withheld assent to two opposition bills recently.
Speaking at a PPP press conference at Freedom House, Robb Street yesterday, Nandlall sought to clarify the role of the President as regards the assent to bills. He said the Constitution ensures “that the executive President of this land is not held ransom or captive to the National Assembly and it is to be interpreted to prevent such an eventuality.”
Quoting Article 52 of the Constitution, he stated that the “National Assembly is not Parliament it is merely a constituent part of Parliament the other constituent part is the President.” Noting that both parts carried significant weight, Nandlall said therefore that the President is not a mere rubber stamp on parliamentary processes.
“The President has a constitutionally endowed jurisdictional freedom to withhold his assent to Bills if he believes them to be misconceived and wrong in principle. That is a presidential prerogative which cannot be whittled away at the altar of political expediency,” Nandlall said. It was therefore within his right to withhold assent to the Former Presidents (Benefits and other Facilities) Bill and the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment Bill) Bill. He added that the President, upon withholding assent to the two bills, returned them to the Speaker of the National Assembly within 21 days and with the reason why he withheld assent.
President Ramotar had indicated his non-assent to the bills on May 7, following a letter from Speaker Raphael Trotman on May 3 enquiring about the status of the bills, which had been sent to him since February, following their passage in the House. In his written response to Trotman, President Ramotar had indicated that he received the bills on May 3.
Nandlall stated that the “constitutional crisis” to which the opposition parties have referred to is “rooted in fantasy rather than reality”. He said that the President, by expressing his opinion that the bills are unconstitutional, has not usurped the function of the court as being the sole arbiter of unconstitutionality. The Attorney General stated that the only the courts can rule on the unconstitutionality of bills.
On Friday last the APNU stated that President Ramotar was not acting in good faith by refusing assent to the two bills which garnered the support of the majority of the National Assembly but not the ruling party. APNU shadow Attorney General Basil Williams had stated that the President’s decision can be challenged in court. Williams explained that the bills could only be presented to the President again within six months of being returned but stated that this seemed like a stalemate option as it has to be supported by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament.
