THE SUB COMMITTEE WILL INSTITUTIONALIZE BACKROOM DEALS

Apr 12, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The latest surprise coming out of the National Assembly was a proposal made, purportedly by the Speaker, to have a seven-person subcommittee of the Committee of Supply that would come up with amendments to the Estimates presented by the Minister of Finance.
This suggestion which has been correctly identified as having no precedent in any parliament.
It is a novel and unique proposal, one that is no doubt made with good intentions but which if implemented will have serious and detrimental implications for the system of parliamentary democracy in Guyana.
The proposal is quite imaginative. It gets an “A” grade on that score. On the face of it, it seems to be attempting to ensure that the National Assembly complies with an Order of the Court, to wit, that the opposition cannot cut the Budget. At the same time, it creates a mechanism to allow the opposition parties to make proposals to do just this.
This unprecedented and extremely creative device of a sub committee of the Committee of Supply which is being proposed has been described as allowing the opposition parties to make proposals to amendments to the Estimates, while at the same time ensuring that the National Assembly is compliant with Justice Change’s recent ruling.
This column argues differently. It asserts that this proposal would not be compliant with Justice Chang’s ruling.
There is a fatal flaw in the proposal. If it is unconstitutional for the National Assembly to amend the Estimates, it will also be unconstitutional for any subcommittee to be established in order to make proposals to this effect.
In other words, it does not matter what mechanism is created, any creature of the Committee of Supply, which submits proposals for amendments would in effect be undertaking a task that the court has deemed to be unconstitutional.
The defense here, as reported in the media, is that the court cannot fetter the procedures of parliament. In other words, it is being suggested that since the Constitution grants to the National Assembly the power to make its own rules, then the judiciary can place no restriction on the creation of a sub committee. From this logic it follows that parliament is free to therefore establish this committee to propose amendments.
However, since the court is the guardian of the constitution (and this is being implicitly recognized by the National Assembly by its recent ruling outlining a proposed sub committee), the court is empowered to guard against any device that can lead to unconstitutional actions.
Since the court has outlawed amendments to the Budget by the opposition, it will be unconstitutional for the Assembly to establish a subcommittee to in effect, do what the court has deemed illegal.
Further, the Constitution grants to parliament the right to control its own affairs. Parliament does this through its Standing Orders. But these Standing orders cannot be in conflict with the Constitution. As mentioned before, these Standing Orders cannot, for example, violate the fundamental freedoms under our Constitution.
Thus, even the Standing Orders while allowing parliament to control its own internal affairs must not abrogate the Constitution. This is made clear by the savings law provision in our Constitution which demands that any amendment to the standing orders of the pre-Independence Constitution, be brought in conformity with the existing Constitution. The principle is clear A Standing Order cannot be amended or created which would conflict with the Constitution.
And since the Constitution, as determined by the Court, outlaws amendments by the opposition to the Budget, no subcommittee cannot be created for either this expressed or implicit function.
This proposal for a subcommittee creates another danger. It will institutionalize backroom dealings as part of the official parliamentary process.
If a subcommittee is created, it in effect allows for negotiations between the parties as part of a formal process of debating and examining the Estimates.
Political deals may be made on premises and the Speaker may play a role in urging the parties to come to an agreement. But to institutionalize such deals through the devise of a subcommittee is outside of the remit of the Speaker and should not form part of the formal parliamentary process.
The Speaker means well. He wants to avoid gridlock. He wants to avoid the paralysis of parliament.
But he needs to be reminded that this is not his role. It is for the politicians to go into a backroom either in parliament or at Freedom House, Congress Place or the Office of the President and cut their own deals on this Budget. It would be irregular, and take Guyana down a slippery slope, if this backroom process becomes institutionalized through the creation of a subcommittee.

---

---