The Guyana Human Rights Association yesterday called on President Donald Ramotar to come clean and dissolve Parliament, a point which was also raised by commentators Christopher Ram and Alissa Trotz.
Without a proclamation being issued, the identification of May 11 as Elections Day by Ramotar has no legal effect, Ram and Trotz said yesterday and while Attorney-General Anil Nandlall said that a proclamation will be issued, he could not say when it will be done.
“The formal requirements of the announcement will be complied with,” Nandlall said when contacted by Stabroek News on the concerns expressed yesterday. “A date has been fixed, a proclamation will be issued to that effect.” He, however, said that he did not know when this would be done and it is within the prerogative of the president.
On Tuesday, Ramotar announced May 11th as the date for general and regional elections, ending two months of suspense after he prorogued the Parliament on November 10 last year.
However, Parliament remains suspended and sections of civil society including the GHRA have expressed concern that Ramotar’s announcement did not comply with the constitutional requirement for the naming of the date of elections. “It is of no constitutional validity,” attorney Ram told Stabroek News saying that the President has to do so by proclamation. “Until he follows the Constitution, the situation remains uncertain and fluid,” he said.
In a statement, the GHRA said that Ramotar’s announcement that he intends to hold elections on May 11th does not preclude the possibility of his changing his mind. “Proclamation of elections in Guyana is linked constitutionally to either prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, it is not decreed unilaterally by the President,” the organisation said.
The statement noted that Article 69 of Guyana’s Constitu-tion states that Parliament must assemble within six months of Parliament being prorogued or four months of it being dissolved. “In the case of dissolution, elections must follow within three months (Art. 61), allowing a month for allocations of seats, resolving disputed results and other administrative matters before the new Parliament is convened,” the statement said.
Ramotar’s date of May 11th “would seem to be premised on the six months following prorogation, but he has retained the option of re-calling Parliament in the meantime,” the GHRA asserted.
Meantime, Ram and Trotz, in a letter to Stabroek News expressed concern that Ramotar’s announcement did not address the status of the Tenth Parliament which was prorogued on November 10, 2014 “nor did it comply with the constitutional requirement” for the naming of the date of elections.
“It is our view that the life of the Tenth Parliament can only come to an end by dissolution and the naming of the date for elections done by way of a proclamation,” the duo said.
They pointed out that prorogation of the Parliament is done under Article 70 by proclamation and “while the Constitution does not expressly so state, it is our opinion that a proclamation is required either to re-convene or to dissolve the Parliament.” They also pointed out that in relation to the naming of the date for elections, Article 61 of the Constitution explicitly requires a proclamation by the President.
Trotz and Ram noted that for the 2011 general elections, there were four proclamations: one on September 27, 2011 to dissolve Parliament and another on the same day dissolving the ten Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs). On October 9, 2011 two other proclamations were issued: one setting November 28 as the date for parliamentary elections and the other setting November 28 as the date for election of members of RDCs.
“It is our opinion that until similar proclamations are issued, the announcement made by the President on Tuesday January 21, naming May 11 as the date for elections has no legal or constitutional effect. As citizens we find it totally unacceptable that the President in his rather extensive address did not discuss the issue of the Tenth Parliament, leaving the country in continuing uncertainty in respect of the Parliament and to his intention to comply with the requirements of the Constitution,” Trotz and Ram said. “The President needs to remove the uncertainty and take the logical steps which the Constitution requires,” they added.
Conform
The GHRA also called on Ramotar to either dissolve Parliament at the earliest opportunity and adjust the election date to conform with the constitutional provision of three months or explain to the nation why he considers re-call of Parliament to be an option still available to him despite being in an electoral season.
“The manner in which the election date has been set, without reference to the life of Parliament, suggest it has been prompted by two considerations: dampening current pressure that the Government either return to Parliament or call new elections and secondly, the benefits which accrue to the ruling party from maintaining the Parliament in session,” the organisation said.
According to the GHRA, the electoral advantage of not dissolving Parliament derives from being able to continue to enter into international agreements such as the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project or other vote-getting projects which official dissolution of Parliament would have precluded.
“The hints provided by Minister of Finance, Ashni Singh, to the effect that the Government may re-call Parliament to present Budget Estimates seem a flimsy attempt to rationalize not dissolving Parliament. In light of the relentless antagonism which characterized the life of the current Parliament, it is absurd to think that in the midst of electioneering, the Parliament is going to sit down and approve a budget,” the statement said. “Continuing the farce that prorogation can still bring the parties into unofficial dialogue during an election season is equally bizarre,” the GHRA added.
Nandlall yesterday said that there is no obligation on the president at the time when he fixes a date for the elections, to, at the same time, dissolve Parliament but acknowledged that “the act of dissolution and a date for elections must comply with the constitutional timeframe of within three months.”
The Attorney-General said that the formal requirements of the announcement will be complied with but when asked, said that he did not know when the proclamation will be issued. He said that it is within the absolute prerogative of the president to name a date for the elections and assuming that a proclamation is issued, it will not change the date for elections. He noted that theoretically the Parliament can remain suspended until February 11.
Nandlall acknowledged that proclamations will have to be issued to dissolve Parliament and set the date for elections but when pressed on when these will be issued, he said that he would not be able to speak for the President on those matters. Those matters are within the prerogative of the president, the Attorney-General said.
