Policy Forum Guyana (PFG) yesterday charged that the ruling PPP/C has since August 2020 progressively closed off avenues for influencing decision-making in politics and it also condemned what it described as the “dismissive” parliamentary handling of its petition seeking a pause in deliberations on the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill which was passed in a stormy session on Wednesday.
In a statement, PFG argued that “Independent voices are being silenced and professionals replaced by compliant camp-followers. As a result, institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Guyana Police Force and the State media, while ostensibly still performing their roles, have become arms of the ruling party”.
In the same vein, it cited the “dismissive Parliamentary treatment” of the Petition signed by 64 citizens calling for a pause in the consideration of the Natural Resource Fund Bill 20 of 2021 and said it is a microcosm of what politics in Guyana has become.
PFG said that resistance to consideration of the NRF bill was sufficiently broad-based that the call in the Petition for it to be sent to a Select Parliamentary Committee “would have provided an elegant way out for the ruling party”.
Adverting to the pandemonium that accompanied the consideration of the NRF bill on Wednesday, PFG said that the “context for the incoherent rage demonstrated by the opposition APNU on the floor of the Convention Centre is that the new Act effectively sees the ruling party becoming the proprietors rather than trustees of the country’s natural resources. The APNU might have been better served by utilizing its Parliamentary time to make this point, rather than … engage entirely in raucous and disorderly behaviour”.
PFG said that it should be borne in mind that not a single consultative process has been conducted by the ruling PPP/C on the new NRF legislation, despite its far-reaching consequences, despite civic opposition and despite having a one-seat majority in Parliament.
“The failure to consult on the new Act is the most egregious violation of the expectation for consultation implied in Article 13 of the national Constitution. Much less than consult, not a single article, debate or discussion was made available to defend or explain the intended legislation, introduced to coincide with the Christmas and New Year festivities. This silence was maintained in Parliament since the presentation by the Minister focused entirely on the weaknesses of the Act he was replacing without a single reference to the content with which he was replacing it”, PFG said.
PFG offered an explanation of the content and purpose of a Parliamentary Petition for the benefit of the public, since it said it attracted little press attention.
It noted that a Petition to Parliament is a device, or method, by which an individual or collection of citizens can appeal directly to Parliament for redress or action on a matter of concern to them. If successful in surviving scrutiny by the Clerk of Parliament’s office, the Petition is then passed to the Speaker of Parliament. Such a Petition must also be tendered by a single member of Parliament who so indicates in writing to the Speaker and also identifies which of three options he or she wishes the Speaker to adopt with respect to the Petition: i) that it be read in Parliament by the Clerk, ii) that it be printed and circulated to all Members of the House or, iii) that it be forwarded to a Select Committee. PFG pointed out that the Speaker also has the power to accept or reject the Petition.
Between December 12-16, 2021 PFG said that it convened a Zoom meeting of member organizations, drafted and approved the Petition, collected 54 signatures and submitted it to Parliament. Between December 20th and 28th, petitioners were notified by the Parliament Office of formatting technicalities which, unlike the previous era, are now rigorously enforced. The Petition was re-submitted twice, the second time by the Member of Parliament sponsoring the Petition, Lenox Shuman, and the third time on Tuesday 28th when the Speaker required a further hard copy by which time a further ten signatures had been received.
PFG said that the call for consultation in the Petition should be sustained by all Guyanese citizens and it is inviting those citizens who have not yet had the opportunity to sign the original Petition to continue to add their names to it. Although it would not serve its original purpose, it would maintain focus on the necessity of consultation on the Act, PFG said. Persons wishing to do so may send their names, together with contact mobile/cell number or address to the PFG email address: policyforumgy@gmail.com or WhatsApp+592-654-5323
