Stabroek News has invited the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change to submit a weekly column on local government and related matters. The PPP/C has declined the offer. Only APNU has submitted a column this week.
Brigadier David Granger, Leader of the Opposition, wrote to President Donald Ramotar on September 9, 2014 reminding him of his duty to respect the Constitution, to respect the decisions of the National Assembly and to respect the promises the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) made in relation to the holding of local government elections (LGE).
Granger called on Ramotar specifically to effect three things, one of these being to ‘initiate a process by which the Local Government (Amendment) Bill could be returned for (his) assent.’ The President’s non-assent to the Bill which was passed unanimously in the National Assembly on August 7, 2013 should not be misunderstood. Notice of non-assent to this Bill came
by way of letter dated 14 November, 2013 from Prime Minister Samuel Hinds in his capacity as Leader of the House and, at that time, acting President, to the Speaker of the National Assembly.
Hinds began by stating that assent to the Bill was withheld on 28 October, 2013 which begs the question as to what was responsible for the President waiting for more than two weeks to inform the Speaker of his decision. Moreover, given this supposed date of 28 October, 2013, this meant that the President was already in breach of the Constitution. This required that, where he 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.’ The Constitution assumes that Bills passed by the National Assembly are to be forwarded directly to the President by the clerk of the National Assembly and not via any circuitous route.
It gets worse. The accompanying message stating the reasons for withholding assent, reads in part as follows: ‘Clauses 6, 13 and 14 of the Bill in their current construct, confer upon the Local Government Commission, powers, duties and responsibilities beyond and in excess of those granted to the Local Government Commission by Article 78A of the Constitution.
Clauses 6, 13 and 14 are, therefore, in collision with and ultra vires of the Constitution.’ First, clause 6 of the Bill passed in the House was identical to that in the original Bill tabled by the Minister. While this clause was amended by the Special Select Committee which dealt with the Bill, this change was reversed on the day of the debate, on a proposal brought by Minister Whittaker. If clause 6 of the Bill is guilty of that which the President asserts, then responsibility for this belongs to the government, and not the opposition.
Clauses 13 and 14 relate to Sections 13 and 14 of the principal legislation, i.e. Cap. 28:02, Local Government Act. It is necessary to quote Section 13 to arrive at a determination as to if the President was correct in refusing to assent. It states:
“The Minister shall have and may exercise in any village or country district any or all of the powers of a local authority whenever it appears to the Minister expedient so to do, and may exercise any or all of those powers in any of those districts, whether there is or is not a local authority thereof.”
This Act came into being on 4th December, 1945 at which time we were a colony and a part of the British Empire. Such imperial provisions and Ministerial powers are inconsistent with our present Constitution, which at Art. 75 specifically state that “local democratic organs shall be autonomous.” To allow a Minister to have power to dissolve a democratically-elected council, therefore, would be in violation of the Constitution. It is necessary to remove these Sections (13 and 14) of the Act, to bring it into conformity with the Constitution.
The minority PPP/C administration has exhibited gross disrespect and defiance toward the National Assembly. Its arrogance will not be tolerated by the majority of the National Assembly. The PPP/C will be forced to respect the Constitution, peoples’ fundamental rights, and decisions of the National Assembly.
Local government is a partner of central government. It is not an adversary or even subordinate. Its role and authority is defined and protected by the Constitution. A Partnership for National Unity pledged in a statement of November 2013, titled ‘Renewal of Real Local Democracy’, to protect democratic institutions, to provide increased funding for local government organs and to partner with these organs to improve conditions in towns and villages.
APNU commits itself to a covenant with citizens to engage everyone in every aspect of community development. APNU calls on all Guyanese to join us in standing up and confronting this arrogant administration.
Say yes to local government elections and No to PPP/C. Say yes to democracy and no to dictatorship. Say yes to local democracy and No to PPP/C. Say yes to a good life. Vote APNU.
