The president as per the Constitution plays a participatory role in parliament, not a dominant one

Jun 24, 2012 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Having followed the ongoing discussions regarding President Ramotar’s threat that he “will not assent to any bill that [the opposition] carry unless it is with the full agreement of the Executive and the full involvement of the Executive,” I’d like to state the following as per the Guyana Constitution:
a) Article 50 outlines, ‘The supreme organs of democratic power in Guyana shall be – i) the Parliament; ii) the President; and iii) the Cabinet. Clearly the supreme authority is vested in the Parliament;
b) Article  67 (1) says,  ”The President may at any time attend and address the National Assembly [and] “( 2) The President may send messages to the National Assembly and any such message shall be read”;
c) Articles 89 and 99 state the “supreme executive authority of Guyana” shall be the President”;
d) Article 51 states, “There shall be a Parliament of Guyana, which shall consist of the President and the National Assembly”;
e) Article 106 (1) states, “ The Cabinet shall aid and advise the President in the general direction and control of the Government of Guyana and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament”;
f)  Articles 171 (1) expressly states, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules of the procedure of the National Assembly, any member of the National Assembly may introduce any Bill or propose any motion for debate in, or may present any petition to, the Assembly, and the same shall be debated and disposed of according to the rules of the procedure of the Assembly”;
g) Article 165 (1) says,  “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the National Assembly may regulate its own procedure and make rules for that purpose;”
h) Article 170 (2) requires, “When a Bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify that he assents or that he withholds assent” and 170(3) “Where the President withholds his assent to a Bill, he returns it to the Speaker within twenty-one days of the date when it was presented to him for assent with a message stating the reasons why he has withheld his assent.”
As per our Constitution the separation of power is clearly demarcated, the checks and balance of the three branches of government and moreso the oversight role of the Parliament- the People’s House- is one that allows any decision/policy of the executive or legislature be, in concurrence with the Constitution which all public officials and every citizen must uphold. When a Bill is approved by the National Assembly, after a debate process, involving both sides of the House and taking into consideration the merits of both sides consistent with our representative democracy, the Bill is no longer an Opposition or Government/Executive’s Bill but a National Assembly Bill. Note, it is the National Assembly that is designated the responsibility of passing Bills, which is different from the Parliament that comprises the President and National Assembly, but in local parlance oft referred to as Parliament instead of National Assembly.
The citizenry expects any Bill coming from the House to be consistent with the Constitution and represent the legitimate interests of various groups in the society.
The President (Ramotar) by virtue of the Constitution is allowed to have his input in the National Assembly and Parliament by addressing the House, sending messages to the House and via his Cabinet who are Members of the House.  As such Mr. Ramotar should be given opportunities to assent to Bills, regardless of which Member initiated it, or which side of the House it emanated from. And if he refuses to assent to any Bill, consistent with the Constitution he ought to tell the nation via the Parliament his reason(s) for declining.
If Mr. Ramotar fails to comply with the Constitution, it ensures the supremacy of the Law and people’s wellbeing as per Article 180(1) which says, “If notice in writing is given to the Speaker of the National Assembly, signed by not less than one-half of all the elected members of the Assembly, of a motion alleging that the President has committed any violation of the Constitution or any gross misconduct and specifying the particulars of the allegations and proposing that a tribunal be established under this article to investigate those allegations, the Speaker shall [effect certain course of action].”
Conclusively, the Parliament remains the supreme organ of the State. The president as per the Constitution plays a participatory role in parliament, not a dominant one, or the impression being given that he has supreme authority over the land and the National Assembly (law making arm). This country yearns for actions that would allow the enabling environment for equitable development and peaceful co-existence. We, the citizens, yearn for a meaningful environment where our parliament, executive and judiciary function consistent with the laws. We long for an environment where all are subject to One Law and play by the Same Rules.
It is time to make our Constitution work for All of Us!
Lincoln Lewis

---

---