The Attorney General is proposing the emasculation of the President’s constitutional powers of assent to Bills 

Feb 07, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Anil Nandlall’s letter titled “Inaccurate utterances and a superficial acquaintance with the law” (KN, February 5, 2013) highlighted a practice that is undemocratic, despotic, unconstitutional, offensive to the electoral wishes of the people who indirectly vote for the president, damages separation of powers and assaults the office of the presidency and the constitutional obligations that the holder of that office must meet.
Nandlall wrote “A concatenation of these functional responsibilities has crystallized into a practice of great utility dating back to the days of the Colonial Assembly which requires all Bills passed by the House to be sent to the Chambers of the Attorney General by the Clerk of the National Assembly, firstly to be examined by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and then by the Attorney General, who issues an Assent Certificate advising His Excellency, the President, that he may properly assent to the Bill, provided, of course, that in the opinion of the Attorney General, the Bill is in order. This document, together with the Bill, is returned to the Clerk of the National Assembly for transmission to His Excellency.”
This is scandalous and brazen stuff here and no custom, practice or usage can save it. It is offensive for the Attorney-General to direct the President to use of the presidential assent, which is a constitutional discretion specifically outlined in the constitution to be exercised only by the president.
This very notion of an ‘Assent Certificate’ is an assault on the constitution. It does not matter whether the colonials used this procedure. We became an independent country in 1966 and we had a new constitution in 1980, which while flawed, remains the law of the land.
That constitution puts the presidential assent only, and exclusively, in the hands of the president.
The president can rely on the Attorney-General or any other person for advice, but he does not have to.
The president can read the bill himself and then assent without even discussing the matter with the Attorney-General. The AG cannot constitutionally direct the president on the use of the presidential assent.
The AG can advise when called upon, but cannot direct in this fashion. The constitution mandates the president to govern in his own deliberate judgement.
That clause was put there to ensure the President is not a puppet. That clause can cause the President to be removed if it can be proven he is a puppet.
This procedure Nandlall is touting is one that is also repugnant to the operation of Parliament and the National Assembly and victimizes the separation of powers doctrine.
Before a bill is passed in Parliament, it goes through many steps and is scrutinized and debated many times at many levels.
When it is passed by Parliament, no Attorney-General has the right to review it and then to direct the President whether to sign it.
The opinion from the Attorney-General whether the bill is in order is out of order. A bill passed by the legislature is in order, regardless of whether the President says yes or no.
For the Attorney-General, who is nothing more than the government’s lawyer and who incidentally is appointed by the president, to claim he has some authority to tell the president that he (the president) can assent to the bill is nonsense and preposterous.
More dangerously, this practice is an attempt to subvert the National Assembly by having the executive fool around with a bill passed by a majority of the people’s elected representatives.
This atrocious practice of the Attorney-General sending the bill back to the Clerk of the National Assembly for transmission to the President is an affront to the constitution and infuriates the separation of powers doctrine.
The Clerk of the National Assembly’s job has to be to pass the bill passed by a democratically elected National Assembly straight to the President, not to some hireling of the President who seizes the President’s authority with this ‘Assent Certificate’ foolishness.
If the President wants to have his Attorney-General review the bill, that is his discretion. However, a bill from the legislature has to go directly to the executive, and they can do what they want internally before the president issues or refuses his assent.
The Clerk of the National Assembly should not be sending bills to the Attorney-General for any bizarre ‘Assent Certificates’.
He should be sending the bill directly to the President or to someone the President specifically designates, such as the Attorney-General, with the clear instruction and understanding that the National Assembly awaits the presidential assent or veto.
This is how this process works in every decent democratic government.
Not only does Nandlall embrace and zealously defend a practice employed by the Colonial Assembly, the same assembly scorned and reviled by Cheddi Jagan, founder of the PPP, anti-colonialist, nationalist and independence fighter.
Nandlall went further to acclaim this sordid colonial practice that is an affront to the principles of democracy and good governance.
The Clerk of the National Assembly is not there to play lackey to the PPP or any government’s caricaturization of the law-making process. As a handpicked officer of the president, the Attorney-General should have no right to tell the President whether he could assent or not when the constitution specifically and unequivocally commands that the President is the only person who possesses this power to assent to a bill from the National Assembly.
The assent lies only with the president, not with the Attorney-General.
The President could seek advice from the Attorney-General but he is not bound to follow it and can freely reject it. The President can sign any bill without even involving the Attorney-General.
The practice and this statement from Nandlall is emasculating of the presidency in general and of the presidency of Donald Ramotar.
This practice and the philosophy behind it that Nandlall now vigorously defends, is constitutionally destructive, undermines the presidency and is against proper governance.
One may argue that Nandlall is ascribing powers to his office in that statement that are not allowed by the constitution, the very constitution Nandlall has publicly sworn to defend.
It is not the opinion of the Attorney-General to determine whether the bill is in order! It is the President who gets to determine whether the bill is in order.
Whether this is Nandlall’s utterly misconceived understanding of his role or is his constitutional naiveté or an attempt to usurp or devalue the powers of the presidency and the constitution along with it, or whether this bewildering utterance is part of a new PPP strategy where President Ramotar has openly agreed to this assault of the constitution and of the subjugation of the powers of the presidency by trading his authority to Nandlall and the Jagdeoites in spineless fashion, it is roguish and despicable on all fronts.
This madness does not occur in any presidential system nor does it even attempt to surface in any proper parliamentary democracy. A cornerstone of the presidential system is the president’s power of the assent and veto.
Attorney-General Nandlall is proposing to devalue this power by making the president a signing puppet who rubberstamps the Attorney-General’s “Assent Certificate”.
If the PPP wants to go down this road, then it cannot, I repeat cannot, complain when the opposition mounts a serious constitutional assault on the presidency and its powers.
After all, the opposition will simply point to the President’s own Attorney-General making him a complete fool and constitutionally backstabbing and subduing him, as the basis for them marching through the already opened door.
M. Maxwell

---

---