Opposition votes down “Rohee’s Bills”

Jun 14, 2013 News

---

 

By Gary Eleazar
The Combined Opposition last evening in another show of defiance against Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, voted down four pieces of proposed legislative amendments including the renaming of the Guyana Police Force to that of the Guyana Police Service.
“The struggle goes on,” lamented Rohee, as the Opposition defeated Bill after Bill that had been put up for debate and possible passage when the National Assembly met yesterday.

Leader of the Opposition Brigadier (ret’d) David Granger, subsequently told media operatives that ever since July last year, the Combined Opposition had taken a stance of ‘no confidence ‘against the Minister of Home Affairs. He said that the resolution in that motion approved by the majority in the House, called on the President to revoke Rohee’s appointment, but this was not done.
Responding to the fact that the Combined Opposition had supported the budgetary allocations for the Home Affairs Minister, Granger said that APNU decided not to withhold support, “so as to not affect the wellbeing of ordinary people or the servicemen”.
He maintained however that “we will not support any measures brought by Rohee.”
The Home Affairs Minister after a number of previous deferrals, yesterday put up for debate the “Evidence (Amendment) Bill, the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, the Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill as well as the Police (Change of Name) Bill.
The Bills were defeated with no Opposition member making any contribution to the debates, but Rohee vowed that following the next elections, the Bills will be reintroduced.
Under the Parliamentary Standing Orders, as long as a Bill has been defeated, it may not be reintroduced to the House for consideration, until the next Parliament that would be constituted following Regional and General Elections.
The Minister, in introducing the Police name change Bill to the House, said it formed part of the reform process of the Guyana Police Force, and as he wrapped up his presentation to the debate on that Bill, declared that the reform within the organization will continue despite the Opposition’s stance.
“Notwithstanding what they think that they have in terms of support in the Police Force, this will send a very troubling signal to this country…A political tug-o-war over the Police Force is unnecessary,” said Rohee as he called the negative stance a “don’t kay a damn position”.
The Bill represented the first time in the 173-year history of the Guyana Police Force that an attempt was made to change its name to that of a Police Service in keeping with its mandate of Service and Protection.
He opined that the political opposition will be condemned by history rather than absolved by it for the stance it has taken.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who argued vociferously in support of the passage of the legislation, reminded the House that the decision to change the name of the Force has been repeated by a number of bodies, and had even been documented in Disciplined Services Commission Report.
The Opposition Leader had served on the Commission.
Nandlall told the House that all of them had made representation to the Commission and had advocated for the name change.
These, he said, included the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), which serves as the largest bloc of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), the Human Rights Commission and ACDA, among the numerous other bodies.
He said that all and sundry that have called for investigations into police brutality and extra-judicial killings, have advocated among the menu of measures for a reform of the Police Force, and to have its name changed to a Police Service.
The name change, he said, was in response to calls for making the force a more service-oriented institution.
Nandlall argued that it was not a mere name change, but serves as a catalyst for a philosophy of a change of character.
The Combined Opposition also voted against the passage of the amendments to change the name of the Guyana Fire Service to that of the Guyana Fire Service and Rescue Brigade.
Rohee called the Opposition’s position on refusing this name change “heartless.”
He said that it was a grave injustice, adding that the Fire Service serves a humanitarian purpose.
Rohee added that during the Parliamentary Budgetary process, money was approved for the purchase of four ambulances and this served as the beginning of the process to resuscitate the Ambulance Brigade of the Fire Service.
“To treat the Guyana Fire Service in the mode as the previous Bills would be a grave injustice,” said Rohee.
The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill was also voted down by the Combined Opposition.
Rohee in presenting that Bill to the House said that the amendment looked to address the use of vehicles in the commission of crimes. He spoke to the fact that there are incidents of drive-by shootings, robberies and other such acts to the point where criminologists have deemed vehicles in certain incidents as weapons.
Under the proposed amendments, it would have also created a new offence, in that it would have been mandatory to report the loss or theft of a vehicle within seven days or be liable to a fine.
He said that on many occasions, persons would rent their vehicles for the purpose of committing crimes but would later argue that their vehicles had been stolen.
“The Bill seeks to capture the challenges of vehicles being used in the commission of a crime and block all possible loopholes in the laws that are used by persons to prevent those who use a vehicle from facing the full force of the law.”
The Evidence (Amendment) Bill was also met with a negative vote.
Rohee on this occasion said that it sought to expand the admission of categories of evidence to cater for advances in the field of science and technology.
Had the Bill been approved by the House, it would have sought to allow for a wider bracket of certificates and reports to be tendered as evidence, including ballistics and fingerprints, as well as those related to fuel, poisons and noxious substances, among others.
The provisions would have also removed the need for admission of the reports and certificates without the presence and testimony of the various experts.
Nandlall in his presentation to that debate said that it would have allowed “to bring speed to a very slothful judicial system.”

 

 

---

---