Latest update November 26th, 2024 1:00 AM
President formally rejects Opposition Bills as unconstitutional
By Abena Rockcliffe
Only after receipt of a letter, by the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman, which served to remind or inform that the constitutionally mandated time for his assent to two Bills that were passed in the National Assembly had “undoubtedly elapsed, has President Donald Ramotar formally stated that he will withhold his assent.
The President has premised his decision not to assent to the two opposition-proposed Bills on the base that both of them have breached several sections of the Constitution.
President Donald Ramotar
This move comes after the Attorney General had unequivocally stated that he would advise the president not to assent to the Bills.
The Bills that are now in limbo are the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill and the Former Presidents (Facilities and Other Benefits) Bill, which Trotman stated were sent to the Office of the President since February 25.
Trotman’s letter, dated May 3, stated that the Constitution mandated the President to return a Bill to the Speaker within “twenty-one days of the date when it was presented to him for assent.”
The Speaker penned that he hoped that it is understandable that he is anxious to ensure that there is a strict compliance with the constitutional requirements regarding the passage of the legislation.
Trotman noted that the he sought word as to the status of the Bills as he was being asked to provide a report to the National Assembly.
In his response to Trotman, Ramotar stated that the two bills were in violation of the Constitution. The president stated that the Fiscal Management and Accountability Bill was in violation of Article 171(2) in that it could not be introduced by a private member but rather only with the consent of the Cabinet “signified by a Minister.”
Further, Ramotar stated that the Act stipulates that the Minister may, by order, amend the Schedule and that it was therefore wrong to do so by an Act of Parliament. The bill passed by the House sought to remove several entities listed as budget agencies under the Act in order to have them draw directly from the Consolidated Fund as constitutional entities.
His final assertion to concretize his withheld assent was, “In my opinion, the Bill is violative of the Constitution and by virtue of Article 8 of the Constitution is unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect, pro tanto.”
The parliamentary majority – the opposition – in January, by virtue of its one seat majority, passed a bill to repeal the Former Presidents (Facilities and Benefits) Act of 2009 and put in place a new one which sets caps on the benefits captured under the 2009 legislation.
The main argument of Former Finance Minister Carl Greenidge, who piloted the Bill was that it was bizarre to allow former Presidents unlimited benefits when the state’s resources in itself are limited.
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman
The passage of the Bill attracted a fiery debate, which saw the government dubbing the bill an ‘eye pass’ to former presidents.
The president echoed similar sentiments in his response to the Speaker as he stated that the Bill “takes away vested rights and it is a denial of a legitimate expectation.”
“The Bill is in violation of the Constitution of Article 142(1) of the Constitution Cap. 1:01 which prohibits the taking away of property compulsorily without the prompt payment of compensation.”
Ramotar also pointed out the Bill’s reference to only “natural children” of the former president being entitled to benefits under the Act as being in violation of the Status of Children Act of 2009 and several articles of the Constitution.
Ramotar cited the legislation’s disqualification of the former president for the benefits if he or she is engaged in business, trade or paid employment or if the individual is cited by any court for any criminal violence as constitutional breaches.
So far, former President Jagdeo is the lone beneficiary of the Bill that allows unlimited benefits given by the state, which the opposition attempted to amend.
A Bill taken back to the National Assembly following the President’s refusal to assent and make law must be accompanied by the reasons for the rejection. Further, it must secure a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly before it can be returned to the Head of State.
Trotman told the National Assembly during his announcement of the President’s decision, that the House is now in the realm of constitutional articles that were never used before.
He had stated on other issues that “the tenth parliament is like no other.”
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
A call for more cultural centres
…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- Burnham’s decision to divert the Indian Immigration Fund towards constructing the National... more
Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Weekend Cartoon
