Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has announced that it would no longer be part of the 19-member U.S. lobbying group of oil companies because of ‘material misalignment’ over climate change policy. Unlike the other members of the group which includes ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Total, Shell has expressed its support for the 2015 Paris Agreement which aims to keep global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue further reductions to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
According to Shell’s Chief Executive Officer, ‘[t]he need for urgent action in response to climate change has become ever more obvious … As a result, society’s expectations in this area have changed, and Shell’s views have also evolved…We must be prepared to openly voice our concerns where we find misalignment with an industry association on climate-related policy. In cases of material misalignment, we should also be prepared to walk away’.
Resignation of government MPs with dual citizenship
Last Tuesday, the Government announced that four of its Members of Parliament (MPs) who are also Ministers of the Government, have resigned from the National Assembly and would not be attending the next sitting of the Legislature rescheduled for later in the month. These are Messrs. Greenidge, Roopnaraine, Gaskin and Harmon. Their ministerial portfolios will be assigned to other Cabinet members. However, they will remain in Government service and assigned other responsibilities.
The following day, the Government issued another statement indicating that the resignations would not take effect until all constitutional requirements are concluded. This essentially involves submitting the resignation letters to the Speaker of the Assembly. By Article 156(1) of the Constitution, ‘[a] member of the National Assembly shall vacate his or her seat therein – (a) if he or she resigns it by writing under his or her hand addressed to the Speaker…’ The statement further indicated that the concerned MPs would be attending the next sitting of the Assembly and that three of the Ministers would renounce their foreign citizenship.
The Constitution, however, does not specify that an MP wishing to resign from the Assembly has to present his or her letter of resignation in person, and therefore it is unclear why the concerned MPs would be attending the Assembly’s next sitting. Nor is it clear why, having resigned from the Assembly, they would renounce their foreign citizenship, unless this is to facilitate their re-entry to the Assembly after the next elections.
On the question of dual citizenship, both Dr. Roopnaraine and Mr. Gaskin expressed the view that they would have been disqualified since March 2015 when their names were submitted at the time of nomination for the May 2015 elections and therefore renouncing foreign citizenship does not solve the problem.
It is now left to the Opposition MPs with dual citizenship to do likewise. The fact that they would not be attending the sittings of the Assembly until the appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice against the Guyana Court of Appeal’s ruling on the vote of no confidence in the Government is heard and determined, does not relieve them of their moral and legal responsibility to resign from membership of the Assembly. Their failure to so will place the Speaker in a difficult position since he would have known that there are other MPs with dual citizenship. The Opposition Leader subsequently indicated that two of the three Opposition MPs involved would be resigning from the Assembly sometime and they would be taking steps to renounce their foreign citizenship.
Acknowledgement of contribution
We must acknowledge with gratitude the long services to this country of Messrs. Roopnaraine and Greenidge, going back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. During the 2000-2001 constitutional reform process, Dr. Roopnaraine played the leading role in securing the Audit Office’s independence from the Executive as well as in ensuring that the Auditor General’s mandate as the external auditor of the public accounts of Guyana are properly and clearly defined and reflected in the Constitution. Article 223 (8) (b) now defines the public accounts to include: (a) all central and local government bodies and entities; (b) all bodies and entities in which the State has controlling interest; and all projects funded by way of loans or grants from any foreign State or organisation. This amendment clarifies for once and for all the Auditor General’s mandate amid attempts over the years to restrict his work to only central government activities.
Dr. Roopnaraine was an ardent cricket enthusiast who played first division cricket for Queen’s College in the 1960s. In his contribution to the debate on the 2014 Cricket Administration Bill, he had the following to say:
Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that among the several contentious issues that have bedeviled us in this House, few have been as vexed and contentious as the issue of cricket administration. The quarrel and I believe the Hon. Minister has alluded to this, has frequently generated, I am afraid, more heat than light; the polemics have been vituperative; there have been yards of column inches; they have flooded the courts with serial injunctions; and all the while, the two sides have dug in, launching missiles at each other…
Like so many of us, Dr. Roopnaraine must have be very much disappointed that to date the Cricket Administration Act designed to bring about order in the administration of cricket and to improve its governance and financial accountability arrangements, continues to be challenged in the courts.
Mr. Greenidge’s contribution relates to the implementation of the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) agreed on by the International Monetary Fund during the late 1980s after the collapse of the Guyana’s economy. The ERP was embraced by the PPP-led Administration following the 1992 Elections. Mr. Gaskin came on the scene after the 2015 elections, and those who have had the benefit of interacting with him can attest to his simplicity and humility, and to the fact that he is a principled person.
Constitutional Reform Process
Following the resignation of Minister Gaskin, the Alliance For Change (AFC) indicated that the question of dual citizenship should be addressed in any constitutional reform process to enable the country to benefit from the services of persons who are also nationals of other countries, implying that that there is a dearth of skills and competences to serve in the 65-member Assembly from among Guyanese nationals residing in Guyana. So far, reaction to the suggestion has been mixed. The AFC statement may have overlooked the fact that there are so many technically and professionally qualified Guyanese residing in Guyana who are willing and able to offer their services to the country as elected officials. However, over the years, these persons have been sidelined in preference to those who are party loyalists and close associates. Many of the persons in the latter category lack the technical and professional competence to undertake the task for which they are required to perform, as borne out by the past and current membership of the Assembly.
Some may argue that if a person wishes to serve as an elected official, he/she must first join a political party of his/her choice. However, the two main political parties derive their support overwhelmingly from the two major races in the country, and the political history of this country has shown that there is hardly any room for other parties. In the circumstances, many such persons are discouraged from entering the political arena. In addition, successive governments have failed to reach out to civil society to tap the human resources available there to assist in the management of the affairs of the State at the legislative, ministerial and other levels. Indeed, the two main political parties over the years have so dominated almost every aspect of public life that there is hardly any room left for civil society to make a contribution to the public good and the public interest.
In its 2015 Elections Manifesto (which includes the Cummingsburg Accord), APNU+AFC had given the undertaking that constitutional reform was one of its priorities within 100 days of the formation of a Government of national unity and that it would establish a Constitutional Reform Committee with a mandate to complete consultations, draft amendments and present them to the National Assembly within nine months for approval (emphasis added). Other sections of the Manifesto read as follows:
The PPP has raped the Constitution by its abuse of presidential powers and ignoring of statutory obligations, including the appointment of Commissions and oversight bodies. Constitutional, electoral and parliamentary reforms are imperative.
The APNU+AFC Coalition will immediately appoint a Constitutional Reform Commission consisting of representatives of all major Stakeholders – trades unions, the private sector, religious and faith-based organisations, women, youths, professional organizations and the University. Its mandate will be to undertake the urgent task of fashioning comprehensive reforms, for early implementation, designed to guarantee a democratic society free from the abuse of citizens by those in high office fueled by the exercise of arbitrary powers and behaviour by the Executive which is inconsistent with the spirit and provisions of the Constitution.
As in the case of the previous Administration, the current Government has failed miserably to honour its promise to the electorate to form a government of national unity. One recalls during the run-up to the 1992 elections, the then Opposition had stated that if elected, it would form such a government and would not subscribe to the ‘winner take all’ principle. When it won the elections, the then Government took two weeks to name its Cabinet. And what a disappointment it was!
Truth be told, the only solution to the myriad of problems facing our country is a government of national unity comprising major stakeholders, since whichever political group, and hence ethnic group, gains power, the other group and indeed the rest of society, feel discriminated against and marginised. Since the British have left us, we have embraced the ‘winner take all’ approach, to our severe detriment. Given the vast resources this country possesses, is it any wonder that we are one of the poorest countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, ranking 24 out of 31 in 2016 with a GDP per capita of US$4,529? (https://www.statista.com/statistics/802613/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-latin-america-caribbean/). For example, The Bahamas and Barbados with little or no natural resources except for white sand beaches and blue waters, have per capital incomes of more than four times that of Guyana.
Our most respected business icon, Mr. Yesu Persaud, loves to relate a conversation he had with the late President Cheddi Jagan in the mid-1990s. Mr. Persaud had reminded the President of his promise to amend the Constitution to, among others, reduce the excessive powers of the President. To this, the then President responded: ‘Look at me. Do you believe that I would abuse my authority as President?’ The late President obviously ignored the distinction between the President as a person and the institution of the Presidency. He died five years after acceding to office.
Some suggestions for constitutional reform
Since the Constitution was promulgated in 1980, many concerns have been expressed in relation to several key provisions that hinder the growth and development of a caring and humane Guyanese society founded on the basis of justice, equality, rule of law and good governance practices. When in Opposition, our leaders set themselves on a pedestal and proclaim loudly and clearly to all four corners of the country what they would do to address the deficiencies in the Constitution. Once elected to office, however, they become so enamoured with its provisions and the benefits they derive from them that they either choose to become oblivious to their promises, or pay lip service to them.
Here is our ten-point action plan for reforming the Constitution:
- Conduct separate elections for the Executive and Legislative branches of government;
- End the ‘winner take all’ practice and provide for the formation of a government of national unity based on the political parties’ standing in the polls, including provision for civil society participation;
- Provide for effective separation of powers between the Executive Branch of Government and the Legislative Branch, in recognition of the principle that the latter makes laws while the former executes them in accordance with the wishes of the latter.
- Prohibit Ministers of the Government from being part of the Legislative Branch of Government in keeping with the principle of separation of powers;
- Subject Ministers’ appointment as well as those of senior public officials to ratification by the Legislature;
- Elect Members of Parliament on a constituency basis, so that each Member is accountable directly to his or her constituency and not to the political parties to which they may belong;
- Provide for independent persons to also contest national and regional elections as well as for membership of the Legislature;
- Allow MPs to vote on issues on the basis of conscience rather than on party lines where they consider it necessary to so do;
- Provide for the membership of the Elections Commission to comprise persons who are genuinely independent of, or not associated with, the political parties contesting the elections; and
- Remove immunity of the President and make him accountable to the Legislature and to the courts for his or her actions as well as all decisions taken.
