Dear Editor,
Upon reading Guyana’s constitution at the National Assembly’s library, Mr Brynmor Pollard, SC has shared an opinion on the fourth local government bill, which President Donald Ramotar declines to sign into law. Based on what Demerarawaves reported on February 5 the senior
counsel said “the President was obliged to assent to Bills passed by the National Assembly and it is only the court that could decide if they were unconstitutional.” But is that opinion now correct and conclusively right?
The prerequisite of presidential assent by the constitution for a bill, any bill, to become law does indeed sound very right. The counsel also pointed out that even if an approved [National Assembly] Bill was perceived prior to assent to be in contravention of a fundamental right of the constitution, only the court could decide on the basis of someone mounting a legal challenge.
“He has no choice. It is not for him to declare law unconstitutional. It is for the court to do that,” he said. Speaking with reporters, Mr Pollard argued that the Attorney General was not the custodian of Guyana’s constitution but the court which must decide on constitutionality.
If all reported is correct who could disagree with such profound wisdom? Not me for sure. That the court is not only the assigned constitutional guardian, but interpreter, protector and enforcer as the highest living supreme legal authority of the land is beyond question. Should the court be the only arbiter with all the costs involved, or are there other alternatives? Evidently the Guyanese public at home and abroad wants to have their say. President John Kennedy convened a group of eminent luminaries during the Cuban Missile crisis to advise and recommend resolution for the peace and dignity for all. He succeeded. This is an internal matter which may, as usual now set judicial precedent for non-Guyanese to determine their destiny. With the USAID Lead project anxious to be of service, funding is assured in making Guyana more democratic, stable and harmonious. Both the executive and legislature can emulate President Kennedy, do likewise to include all those former Guyanese attorney generals, and a mix from the Caribbean if needs be. Whether Commonwealth judges will be preferable can only be resolved by the respective parties.
Two respected senior counsel have given free legal advice ‒ Speaker Ralph Ramkarran was the first at his website conversationtreegy.com and in the SN ‒ and both have now upheld the authority of the judiciary so stipulated by the constitution as inviolable. Lavishing such legal counsel ought to be made constitutional. In high hopes of Guyanese becoming beneficiaries, would it now be imprudent to mention what the constitution specifically details? How and what the President must communicate in his reservations to the National Assembly that is actually written in the constitution. Should its clarity be so summarily dismissed and/or ignored? The relevant part of the constitution is submitted for their reconsideration and readjustment.
Article 170 of the constitution outlines the relevant clauses as follows:
(1)“… the power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President.”
(2) “When a Bill is presented to the president for assent, he shall signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.”
(3) “Where the President withholds his assent to a Bill, he shall return it to the Speaker within twenty-one days of the date when it was presented to him for assent with a message stating the reasons why he has withheld the assent.”
(4) “A Bill shall not become law unless it has been duly passed and assented to in accordance with this constitution.”
In our fledgling democracy does the President have the right to freedom of choice? The freedom to assent, and to withhold assent from Bills presented to him is not automatic. In the event he does not assent he has to give a reason, which he did. Pledged to uphold the constitution he cannot agree to undermine the supreme law of the land by wilful abandon when he makes his decision. In other words the President, on receipt of the Bill on his desk must state the reason ‒ not justify it ‒ for the presidential discomfort. Since no president was blessed with President Forbes Burnham’s legal nimbleness, Guyana’s Attorney General became the automatic taxpayers’ imperative as the principal legal officer, with constitutional authority to represent all the pros and cons, following which the president then communicates his decision to the National Assembly.
The President’s preference not to do wrong or be irresponsible, credited the unconstitutionality of the Bill as the reason for its rejection. Variance with his oath to upkeep and uphold the constitution would be premeditative. Is he wrong? Then let the judiciary rule “on the basis of someone mounting a legal challenge” as Mr Pollard so astutely recommended. Guilt is not affirmed by many, or by loud or chorused hearsay when culpability has yet to be adjudicated by the court, moreso in this case which comes under the specific jurisdiction of the supreme law of the land. If Demerarawaves correctly quoted the senior counsel and the President sent the bill back with “reason” in accordance with the constitution, who is to be held responsible for violating the constitution, and who will be fully exonerated by the court “on the basis of someone mounting a legal challenge”?
Any additional enlightenment in a civilized and democratic country coming from those who are still respected for their vast experience would do the body politic good.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
