The actions of a few Freedom House despots could have catastrophic consequences for all

Oct 08, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The real issues are the time limit for assent or non-assent and whether the President can refuse assent to a bill passed by his own party
Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, wrote a letter in Stabroek News titled “The President has untrammelled freedom to assent to and withhold assent from Bills” (SN, September 30, 2013).
Now, that entire letter is expected from a man who somehow believes verbosity trump simplicity, nothing but an overdone case of stating the obvious. Indeed, the President has unrestrained freedom to assent or not assent to Bills passed by Parliament. Anyone who can read and do some research on the internet knows this as fact.
The real issues missed or deliberately skirted by the AG are (1) the flaunting of the time limit for assent or withholding of assent using this serpentine Assent Certificate process and (2) whether the President, elected through the mechanism of elections to the National Assembly as head of a slate of a party seeking seats to the National Assembly, and not separately elected as is done in the USA or India, can constitutionally withhold assent to a bill passed by his own party in Parliament.
These are the true burning issues of the day, so much that a week ago the US Ambassador to Guyana raised concerns about these very issues (see “US Ambassador: Uncertainty clouds legislative process owing to local gov’t bills delay”, SN, October 1, 2013).
The circus, malarkey and sham that is the Assent Certificate process, where the AG must produce that certification before the President signs a bill, is another classic example of backwardness practiced by both the PNC and PPP governments.
Even worse, it is an assault on democracy, a subversion of the constitution, an unfair and ridiculous delaying tactic, an assault on separation of powers, an infringement on and usurpation of the power of the President, an unconstitutional review of bills already passed by the National Assembly, and an illegal and unjust control and hindering of the legislature and executive.
The constitution and democracy itself never intended for a Bill to be passed around like a football in this circuitous circus before it gets to the President. This is a dangerous practice that encourages governments to play the fool with the efficacious passage of laws. This assent certificate tomfoolery must be ended.
For constitutional certainty, efficiency and efficacy, and giving expeditious expression to the will of the people expressed by their elected representatives through law-making in the highest forum of the land (Parliament), this despotism must be halted.
The opposition led by the Speaker is to blame here too. They have the power to pass a law to change this process. The Speaker has the authority to instruct the Clerk of the National Assembly to send Bills directly to the President after passage. If the Clerk fails to do so, the National Assembly could fire that Clerk and replace him with another.
Mr. Nandlall states “Indeed, it would be improvident for any President, who has the power to withhold his assent to Bills, to exercise such power without legal or political advice, as the case may be. I am aware that constitutions specifically provide for the Bills to be transmitted directly from the legislature to the President. Unfortunately, our constitution does not so provide. Hence, that practice developed.”
Well, the President has 21 days under article 170 of the Guyana Constitution to assent or withhold his assent. 21 days is all the time President has to sign or not sign. If the President wants to consult his Attorney General within those 21 days, he is free to do so. However, it does not extend the time. This is what happens in modern democracies with a time limit on the assent. Not the present PPP’s circus antics.
Neither the US Constitution (Article 1 section 7) nor the Guyana Constitution (Article 170) requires direct transmittal of Bills from the legislature to the President. Yet, Bills passed by the US Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) are sent to the US President within a day of both legislative houses being informed. In Guyana, it is taking months for bills to be assented to or rejected by the President, even local government Bills passed by the President’s own party!
One country is the most powerful democracy in the world with the busiest leader on the planet, while the other is a small nation being run like a backwater banana republic.
For example, the most recent US Bill signed by President Obama into law is the Vietnam Veterans Donor Acknowledgment Act of 2013. The US Senate passed the Bill on July 10, 2013. A message was sent to the US House of Representatives, on July 11, 2013. The Bill was presented to directly to the President on July 12, 2013. The US President has 10 days to sign the bill. President Obama signed the bill into law on July 18, 2013.
In Ireland, the contentious Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 was passed on July 29, 2013 by the Irish Parliament and was signed into law on July 30, 2013 by the Irish President, despite his calling of a rare and special Council of State meeting.  So, Mr. Nandlall is spouting unmitigated nonsense, unsupported by real world evidence.
The other part of the problem here and another elephant facing the PPP is the President’s non-assent to the local government Bills, which I reiterate, the PPP voted for!
Does a Guyanese President have the constitutional power to refuse to assent within 21 days to a Bill passed by ALL of his own party MPs in the National Assembly? Mr. Nandlall himself answered this when he said “Pragmatically speaking, a President withholding his assent from Bills would, indeed, be a rare occurrence since, invariably, Bills emanate from the government’s side in the National Assembly and would have received an input from and the approval of cabinet of which both the President and his Attorney General are a part.”
Clearly, the President’s Cabinet or the majority therefrom was sitting in the National Assembly when all PPP MPs voted for the local government Bills. Undoubtedly, the President’s chief representative in Parliament, the Prime Minister, voted for the local government Bills. The President’s chief legal advisor, the Attorney General, Mr. Nandlall, voted for these four local government bills! The PPP’s Minister of Local Government who is a member of the Cabinet brought the motion for the vote on the local government Bills!
So, the PPP’s executive wholly and unconditionally supported and voted for this Bill. Unless the President argues there was a mutiny against him by the entire slate of PPP MPs in the National Assembly on that day, and by a majority of his own Cabinet, which in itself would mean he should be removed because he does not have the support of more than two-thirds of the National Assembly, he approved of and assented to the local government Bills, as they were presented by his own party for a vote!
This vote was an act he unequivocally authorized, supported and endorsed. It is why the US Ambassador, echoing what is likely the sentiment of the ABC nations, is openly critical of this course of action.
I cannot find any instance in any modern executive presidency where a President has refused to sign within the allotted time for assent to a Bill passed by his entire party in the legislature. Yes, the PPP has broken new despotic ground with this shameful act.
What I think the PPP is trying to pull here is this: it will call local government elections, but will refuse to pass the new local government laws which significantly advance and improve existing local government laws and democratic holding of local government elections. The old laws accommodate dictatorship and the PPP wants them in place when an election is held.
It would be another sinister act of totalitarianism by the PPP that will push the international community firmly into the opposition’s corner. Refusal to reform the old local government laws by refusing to sign a bill passed by your own party and MPs en masse and then calling a local government election under the old democratically-challenged laws will likely be seen by the international community as a PPP attempt to manipulate and defraud the local government election.
In its current sepsis of no more majority and far worse, diminishing plurality, where its support dwindles every day with a decreasing Indian population and a departing Mixed and Amerindian crossover base that previously voted for it, this despotic and corrupt cabal controlling the PPP will consider rigging future elections when the margins inevitably shrink to the point where it is no longer assured of a plurality.
The fraudulence and manipulation at its 2013 congress election where there were more ballots than voters, signals this could be the future.
I see the warnings on democracy from the ABC countries as evidence of a pattern that will inevitably confront the PPP in the future. The actions of a few despots in Freedom House driven by greed and power could have catastrophic consequences for this country as a whole. A few will cause grave hardships for the rest.
M. Maxwell

 

 

---

---