Opposition wants to seize power through the backdoor – Govt.

Mar 05, 2014 News

---

Government has accused the political opposition of looking to seize power through the backdoor by transferring it to the legislature where it has a one-seat majority.
This was the charge by Minister of Legal Affairs, Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who yesterday, along with fellow Government Ministers, Dr Ashni Singh and Bishop Juan Edghill and Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira, during a live televised press conference at NCN, sought to lambast the opposition over its stance on the Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill.
“The one-seat majority is engaged in a singular quest and that is to grab Executive power from the government, which the constitution resides with the Executive and to unlawfully and unconstitutionally transfer it to the legislature.”
Nandlall told media operatives that this is evident in the amendments tabled by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), in order to transfer the appointments of the members of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) into the hands of the Legislature and removing it from the Executive.

DIRECT POLICY
Nandlall said that the move is consistent with the efforts of the political opposition over the past two years.
According to the Legal Affairs Minister, the opposition is looking to direct Executive policies by way of Parliamentary resolutions.
The Parliamentary Committees, which are controlled also by the opposition, are being used to “coerce policy down the throat of the Executive” according to Nandlall.

He used as an example the motion which called on the Minister of Finance to, among other things, transfer money from entities such as the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited.
Nandlall said that when the Minister failed to adhere to the resolution piloted by APNU, they moved to have the Minister committed to the Committee of Privileges with a view to institute sanctions.
Nandlall also used as an example the “ordeal” of the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee.
A motion of no confidence was passed against Minister Rohee, which called on the President to remove him in that capacity. When this failed, according to Nandlall, the Opposition then moved to have him be gagged from speaking in the House.
“They want to determine in the legislature who shall function as Executive Ministers, when the Constitution says that those are powers reposed in the President and in the Executive arms of Government”

DARK DAYS OF BURNHAM REGIME
As it relates to the amendments for which the political opposition insists that must accompany the Anti-Money Laundering Bill, when taken back to Parliament, Nandlall said that deep down these are designed to remove power from the Executive, while another is looking to take Guyana back to the dark days under the Forbes Burnham regime.
As it relates to the FIU amendments, Nandlall said there is not a similar architecture anywhere in the world. He explained that this is so because law enforcement functions lay in the purview of the Executive.
Nandlall argued that the separation of powers doctrine dictates that such powers remain with the executive.
“It is the Government that has to report to the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) and it is the Government that has all the responsibilities and obligation to ensure that the guidelines of CFATF and the United Nations Security Council and all the relevant agencies whose functions and jurisdictions concern anti money laundering and the countering of financing of terrorism; it is the Government, the Executive government, that is required to report and is held responsible.”

AUTHORITARIANISM
As it relates to the amendment involving the seizure of money within the borders of Guyana by the law enforcement agencies, such as ranks of the Guyana Police Force, Nandlall said that this “is another manifestation of authoritarianism.”
He said that there are many pieces of legislation in Guyana where police have extraordinary powers but, “there are certain safety valves.”
He used as an example cases where there needs to be something more than just suspicion to act against a citizen and other cases where police would have to approach the Supreme Court before a seizure can be made.
“It is very difficult other than to turn to the dark-side of the APNU and their history of anti-democracy when one looks at this provision.”
Nandlall charged further that APNU’s amendment is not part of the CFATF recommendations, “so why do you want to put this in the law?” He questioned the motive, when there is a body of law that was started under the PNC and continued under the current administration that liberalized the financial sector and allows for money to be held in undefined quantities.
“We had to free up the country from the controlled state that the Burnham regime had it in, this is taking us right back there. We are going back into the mentality of a controlled economy and one where arms of the state can be used to regulate people’s financial capabilities.”

CPC STRUGGLING
Meanwhile, as it relates to the actual drafting of the legislation that APNU is holding out for, and for which the Government bemoans, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh reported that it is a task that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC) is struggling to complete.
Dr. Singh in his report to the media, reminded that when the recommendations for the amendments first came they were disjointed, and the Select Committee even had to adjourn to attempt to word a workable recommendation.
“The legislative drafters are still struggling to translate what was submitted by the opposition into meaningful and potential legislative amendments,” according to Dr. Singh.
It is these same incomplete draft amendments that the CPC failed to complete by February 28 last, which led to the Bill being stuck in the Select Committee.
According to Dr. Singh, the proposed amendments, at the very least, are the subject of considerable controversy.
“There are fundamentally strong reasons why the government has reservations about these amendments.”
He said that the Government’s position on APNU’s amendments is supported by virtually every national stakeholder across the country.
Dr. Singh qualified his statement by pointing to several national consultations and even town hall meetings, “and the cry has been a unanimous one that the amendments proposed by the opposition, including such matters of the seizure of currency, will pose problems.”
He said that even if agreement could be found on reformulated amendments, “that will take time and it will require compromise and significant departure from what was originally proposed by the opposition….The proposals made by the opposition are fundamentally problematic, require careful study, require consultation; clearly require, at the minimum, reformulation to make them workable.”
Asked to expand on what specifically is posing problems for the CPC in drafting the Bill, given that it appears that the problem was more political than technical, Dr. Singh reminded that when the recommendation was first given to the drafting team, they returned to the Committee seeking further clarification as to what was intended.
He said there was a significant lack of clarity in what was submitted by the opposition.
“In addition to that, the thrust of what was proposed by the opposition was itself obviously problematic….There were technical issues related to the clarity of what it was that the opposition was asking for, and there were also obvious fundamental problems with the central thrust of their proposal.”

MECHANICAL SCRIBE
Nandlall pointed out that drafting is a science that would require a study of the ripple effects of any changes made to the Principal Act.
“The CPC is not a mechanical scribe as some people believe. This is a person who is a legally trained officer…When you give him something to draft he has to put his training into effect.”
In doing so, Nandlall says that the CPC would have to take into consideration the recommendations and guidelines from CFATF.
He asserted that given the training and experience of the CPC, he would know that by outlawing cash, it would mean an implied repeal of sister legislation which authorizes a person to posses cash in an undefined quantity.
The Minister of Legal Affairs said that the CPC would, in drafting the amendments, seek to ensure that it is consistent with other laws of the land and in particular the Constitution of Guyana, which says that persons must not be unlawfully deprived of their property by agencies of the state without compensation.
He said that APNU is proposing to delete certain parts of the Principal Act and simply insert its proposed amendment.
“You have to now look at that insertion to see the ripple effect it will have within the four corners of that very legislation.”
Drafting of law, according to Nandlall, is an extremely complicated exercise, “the CPC is not a note taker for anyone, he doesn’t reduce what you say orally into writing and hand it back to you, it is a science.”
The Select Committee tasked with addressing the Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill is scheduled to meet today, where it is expected to be presented with an update from the CPC as to the progress he has made thus far.

---

---