Dear Editor,
I have read various extremely one-sided versions of what transpired at last Monday’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting. As is normal, some of the media only reported the PPP’s skewed version of the details – other than the ever-professional Nazima Raghubir (unfortunately I was unavailable), no-one contacted me so that a balanced report could be issued. Further to my unavailability, there are four opposition members on the PAC, any of whom would have been able to shed some light on Monday’s proceedings, if contacted. This was not done by these media houses.
Here are the details of Monday’s proceedings: –
Firstly to Kaieteur News – PAC meetings are held at Parliament Buildings not the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (you know the quality of the reporting if they can’t even get the venue right).
The 7th meeting was called to order at 10:35am. There was an immediate objection by Juan Edghill who insisted that the meeting was a continuation of the 6th meeting, which was aborted on February 1, 2021, thus the committee was still in the 6th meeting and a motion of confidence was on the floor. Edghill was informed that the 6th meeting was aborted on instructions of the Speaker of the National Assembly following a meeting with myself, Gail Teixeira and the Clerk of the Assembly. The government members then insisted that the Speaker has no authority to abort a committee meeting, this can only be done by the Committee itself.
The Clerk of the Assembly was summoned to provide some clarification. He duly advised that the 6th meeting was correctly aborted, and this meeting was indeed the 7th meeting, not a continuation of the 6th as represented by the government members. Further, a member can table a motion to amend the agenda, at the appropriate stage, to have the motion of confidence included. With that advice, the meeting proceeded as per the agenda, until the item “Committee Business” when Gail Teixeira sought the Chairman’s permission to move a motion to amend the agenda to include her motion of confidence. Leave was granted and the motion to amend the agenda was put and passed by the majority. Teixeira then proceeded to move a motion to have me removed as Chairman of the Committee.
At that stage, in accordance with standard protocols coupled with the government position (Edghill in particular) in the 6th meeting, that the Chairman should not preside over a motion of which he is the subject, I recused myself and invited another member to chair the meeting and proceed with the motion. All the opposition members declined to accept the Chairmanship.
The Clerk of the Assembly’s intervention was once again sought, and he highlighted that Article 82 (2) of the Standing Orders stated that “The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee must be a member of the main Opposition in the Assembly”. However, Standing Order 95 (4) which deals with the procedures in select committees generally (note the PAC has its own special rules under Section 82) states “if the Chairperson is unable to be present at any meeting, the Committee shall elect another Chairperson whose tenure shall be for the day of his or her election” – in other words, the PPP/C was attempting to elect one of the government members as Chairperson in clear contravention of the Standing Orders and Constitution of Guyana. Clause 95 (4) permits the election of a Chairperson from the eligible members – i.e. only the Opposition members.
Legal advice was sought from PPP/C MP Sanjeev Datadin (the only lawyer on the Committee) and quite unsurprisingly, he claimed that Clause 95 outweighed Clause 82, thus the Committee can proceed to elect a government Chairperson. Juretha Fernandes on behalf of the Opposition objected on the grounds that the advice was bad and biased as well as the fact that the Clerk should not be relying on advice from a member of the Committee who has a vested interest in the outcome of the matter.
The 7th meeting was aborted to allow the Clerk to obtain legal guidance on the matter.
In fairness to the Clerk of the Assembly, he indicated that the Government by virtue of their majority, can bring the motion to the National Assembly, and if passed can remove me as Chairperson – I thanked him for his advice.
As is the norm these days, some media outlets, only carry one skewed version of the news.
Yours faithfully,
David Patterson
Chairman
Public Accounts Committee
