The passage of the AML/ CFT (Amendment) Bill seems hinged on the ability of the PPP/C, APNU and the AFC to compromise on positions they have held for almost a year and others adopted more recently, but with only the AFC demonstrating the willingness to budge on its longstanding demands the passage of the bill by any deadline seems bleak.
The need for compromise was emphasized by Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader Khemraj Ramjattan during a press conference on Thursday, held just hours after word broke that the bill would not be taken back to the house because Chief Parliamentary Coun-sel Cecil Dhurjon was unable to translate opposition proposed amendments into legal language for consideration by the select committee examining the bill.
When the bill was taken to the house last April, the AFC maintained that it would not support the legislation until the government named its nominees to Public Procurement Commission (PPC), helped get the names approved in the National Assembly, and provide financing so that the body can begin to function. The AFC was also adamant that it would not support bids by Cabinet to retain its no-objection powers in the procurement process, a power that would be eroded with the establishment of the PPC.
As of recent though, the party has offered a compromise. AFC General Manager David Patterson on Thursday told Stabroek News that the party was willing to give a bit so that it can get what it wants. Whereas the party was calling for Cabinet’s no-objection privilege to be stripped away entirely, Stabroek News has seen a draft document outlining the party’s revised position which states that “all complainants shall have the right to raise an objection to the Public Procurement Commission on any procurement award with which the complainant disagrees” once the PPC is set up.
However, Cabinet, and any other stakeholder part of the process will only be allowed to raise an objection “where the complainants determines that the procuring entity failed to comply with applicable procurement procedures.” Furthermore, Cabinet, or any other stakeholder would need to raise their objection “not later than 21 days after that procurement award is made.”
It will also be left up to the commission to establish the merits of the objection, during which time the procurement award will be stayed. Speaking to Stabroek News on Friday Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall said government was more than willing to accommodate, as well as make any reasonable compromise. Asked government’s position towards the compromise offered by the AFC, he said the party was yet to supply government with a document outlining its revised position.
He said while the matter was discussed during a meeting on Wednesday, the only document given to him on the party’s position was a “scribbled note,” under informal circumstances by Patterson. Patterson though, said he handed Nandlall a comprehensive document, which clearly outlines the AFC’s revised position.
He said it seemed the document given to Nandlall may not have been shared with the rest of the Cabinet, as only Nandlall was aware of the proposal during a meeting on Wednesday.
It is yet to be seen how the government will respond to the AFC’s proposal, and Nandlall says government can only make a decision when AFC makes a proper submission.
Meanwhile, it does not seem as though A Partner-ship for National Unity (APNU) will offer a compromise. Asked to what extent the coalition is willing to give up some of its demands, APNU Leader David Granger told reporters that the coalition’s demands are based on a principled position, and contended that compromising would produce a weaker bill. In addition to proposing amendments to the Principal AML/CFT Act, the coalition is also demanding that the President gives assent, or agrees to a system which will see him giving assent to bills he had turned away citing their “unconstitutional” content.
Though the APNU’s proposed amendments have nothing to do with the Anti-Money Laundering Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) (Amendment) Bill, the coalition refuses to allow the bill to be passed without the amendments, despite pleas from government MPs to this effect.
Government Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, who chairs the parliamentary special select committee considering the bill, as well as Minister within the Finance Ministry Juan Edghill in particular, have pleaded with the opposition parties to pass the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill so as to meet the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) deadlines, then come with their amendments later so they too can be passed.
However, the government’s refusal to go give effect to several resolutions passed by the House, coupled with the President Donald Ramotar’s refusal to give assent to several bills he disagrees with has muddied to waters of trust between government and the opposition parties. Clearly, APNU does not trust the government to do what it promises to do.
Even now, APNU has expressed curiosity at the fact that Dhurjon was unable to draft the opposition’s amendments in time for them to be discussed at an 11am meeting on Thursday, and laid in the house in time for Thursday’s sitting at 2:00pm. Asked if he believes Dhurjon, an officer in the Attorney General’s Chambers, is being manipulated, Granger dodged the question, offering that he has never known Dhurjon to be unable to complete allotted work by an appointed deadline.
Later in the press conference though, he said, “Mr Nandlall controls the CPC (Chief Parliamentary Counsel).” On the other hand, Nandlall says that while government is more than willing to compromise, it will only do so with demands that are reasonable, and the APNU’s demands do not fit the criteria.
Moving forward is further complicated by the AFC’s insistence that the government needs to give thought to APNU’s demands. The AFC is arguing that for the AML/CFT (Amendment) to be passed, the government needs the opposition parties’ help, and so must consider their demands. As far as Nandlall is concerned though, APNU is not offering compromise, but ultimatums.
Meanwhile, Guyana missed a February deadline by which CFATF required the bill to be passed, and the National Assembly is not slated to meet again until March 27, which means the next possible date for the bill to be passed is near the end of next month.
The committee will continue to meet though – a meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday – and all three parties will continue to meet to carry on the work of the committee. It is expected that Dhurjon will have completed his task by this time, therefore allowing the opposition’s drafted proposed amendments to be discussed.
