So the President has made good his threat to prorogue Parliament! He suspended the proceedings of the House for an unspecified period, although constitutionally a prorogation cannot exceed six months. The President cited as the reason for this unprecedented action his belief that “the Parliamentary Opposition intends to disrupt Government’s business by forcing a debate on their No Confidence Motion”. He expressed the hope that this action would allow for possible accommodations by both sides of the House to replace an atmosphere of confrontation that might have been precipitated by a debate of the motion.
The President’s action brought to the fore once more the excessive powers vested in the presidency by our flawed constitutional arrangement dating back to 1980. Even the architect, former President Forbes Burnham, did not find it necessary to use this provision even in his darkest hour, a provision that would have enabled him to remain in power in the midst of a rebellion of even the staunchest of his supporters. Former President Desmond Hoyte also never entertained the thought of proroguing Parliament when faced with three of his greatest challenges in the pre-1992 period: fighting off his Deputy for control of his party; implementation of the Economic Recovery Programme; and local and international pressure to free up the electoral process.
Instead of rising above the political fray and displaying genuine statesmanship, our current President has allowed himself to become an interested party in the various disagreements among the political parties in the National Assembly. Indeed, the President has been unable to extricate himself from partisan politics and has not carried himself in such a way so that he can be viewed as a father figure of the nation. Had he done, the course of action he has chosen might have been necessary.
Let me illustrate by citing the following example. About a year after the new Administration took office in 1992, the then Minister of Finance sought to restrict the role of the Auditor General to central government activities in violation of Article 223 of the Constitution. The Minister relied on the various pieces of legislation which conferred upon him the authority to appoint auditors. He accordingly removed the Auditor General as the auditor of the Bank of Guyana and a number of other agencies, and replaced him with private auditing firms. The then President Cheddi Jagan had to intervene in the matter. He summoned both of us to a meeting with him. Without allowing us to present our arguments, the President spoke the following words as he entered the room: “When I was the Leader of the Opposition, I always wondered why the Auditor General was not involved in the auditing of public corporations. As a matter of policy, he should be involved, and if the law does not provide for this, we must amend the law.” He then left the room without any further word!
Since the death of Cheddi Jagan, “circling the wagons” has become an entrenched strategy of the Administration, even in the midst of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by senior public officials.
In Canada, the Governor-General prorogues the Legislature on the advice of the Prime Minister, usually when the agenda set out in his/her speech is completed. In other cases, there must be adequate justification, and the Governor General may set conditions, including the length of time involved. In December 2008, for example, the Legislature was prorogued for 53 days to stave off a vote of no confidence in Stephen Harper’s minority government. However, it was not before the Prime Minister gave the assurance that within two to three weeks after Christmas break, his government would subject itself to the “judgment of the of the Legislature” on the question of a no confidence vote. In December 2009, the Legislature was again prorogued for 62 days for the Winter Olympic Games.
Examining the President’s reason for proroguing Parliament
The President hopes that the prorogation of Parliament will allow the political parties to engage in dialogue to find consensus on several important issues facing the country. It is extremely difficult to see how this hope can translate into reality when over the last three years all previous engagements in and out of the National Assembly have failed to achieve any meaningful outcomes, and I dare say, not for want of effort from the Opposition. The Administration has refused to acknowledge its minority status; has consistently and steadfastly held on to its position on a number of important issues facing the nation; and has made absolutely no effort to accommodate the views of the other side of the House.
The holding of local government elections, despite enormous and sustained pressure from the Opposition, civil society and the international community, remains an elusive reality. The last elections were held in 1994 despite the law requiring such elections to be held every three years. The Administration has proffered the most frivolous of excuses for denying citizens their fundamental democratic right to decide who amongst them should manage the affairs of their communities.
The constitutionally-mandated Public Procurement Commission is also yet to be established despite the lapse of 13 years because the Administration does not want to surrender the Cabinet’s role in the procurement process. It has to date refused to nominate its members to the Commission. It is also no longer a secret that the present arrangements are fraught with evidence of corrupt behaviour and other forms of irregular practices under the very watch of the Cabinet, and the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board that is controlled by the Minister of Finance. The recent farcical prequalification exercise for the supply of drugs and medical supplies as well as the termination of the Specialty Hospital contract, bear this out clearly.
The Integrity Commission, a mechanism that assists in curbing corrupt behaviour among public officials, has also not been functioning since 2006 when the Chairman resigned. It is public knowledge that several senior public officials flaunt unexplained wealth with impunity. The Administration has shown no inclination to have a fully functioning Commission in place. In addition, the President is yet to assent to several Bills that the National Assembly had passed, although the deadlines for him to do so had long passed. The President claimed that some of the Bills are unconstitutional. However, he is not the competent authority for deciding on the constitutionality of a matter. Rather, it is matter for the Courts to decide.
For three consecutive years, the Administration refused to involve the Opposition and to as far as possible accommodate its views on the budget process. This attitude has resulted in the non-approval of certain items in the proposed budgets for these years. The Administration’s response was not to dialogue to find a way out, but to seek the intervention of the Courts. While many of us do not agree with the Court’s ruling on the matter, the Assembly was obliged to follow it, albeit with a heavy heart. The ruling essentially stated that the Assembly could either approve or disapprove of the budget but not amend it as it did for 2012 and 2013.
For 2014, the Opposition appealed unsuccessfully to the Administration to separate contentious items in the proposed budget from those relating to essential services so that the latter could enjoy smooth passage. The Assembly therefore had no other alternative than to disapprove of some $37 billion in proposed expenditure. The Opposition had suggested that the items relating to essential services be brought back to the House by way of a supplementary estimate with the assurance that the estimate would enjoy smooth passage. The offer was again contemptuously brushed aside, and in a total act of defiance against the wishes of the Assembly and in violation of Article 217 of the Constitution, the Minister of Finance went ahead and authorized the withdrawal of funds from the Treasury in the tune of $4.554 billion to restore parts of the original budget. Nowhere in the world would this have been allowed to happen without appropriate sanctions!
As regards the proposed amendments to the anti-money laundering legislation, the Administration held on steadfastly to its position that the amendments should only be in relation to the deficiencies identified by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force. The Opposition, however, felt that opportunity should be taken to undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the legislation since: Guyana is a transit country for cocaine destined to Europe, North America and the Caribbean; and money laundering is linked to drug trafficking, crime and corruption. Needless to mention, the Opposition’s pleas found no fertile ground.
I end this session with a quote from one of last week’s editorials appearing in the Jamaica Observer on the prorogation of Guyana’s Parliament:
His (The President’s) specious justification for this undemocratic act is a transparent farce, claiming that proroguing Parliament was his “sole recourse” to preserving the life of the current Parliament and to bring an end to the opposition’s “political gamesmanship”. To deliberately create a situation in which the executive is exercising power without a functioning parliament is a subversion of democracy. It is tantamount to the conversion of an elected president into a de facto dictator. All this is clearly intended to maintain himself in power and delay elections as long as possible.
To be continued –
