Latest update August 26th, 2026 10:21 AM
Nov 13, 2014 News
By Zena Henry
Despite the Opposition parties emphatically stating their intentions not to hold any more talks with the government if
Parliament is prorogued, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Administration is still banking on that option. However, if discourse does not provide a means to an end, it is more than likely that the country will see General Elections before the scheduled constitutional date in 2016.
Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon stated during the weekly press briefing at Office of the President yesterday that the Administration is hoping that the Opposition parties will come to the discussion table to address the many issues which they believe are more important than the pending no-confidence motion.
President Donald Ramotar made the bold and historic move to prorogate Parliament last Monday in what many believe was a bid to avoid the Alliance for Change’s (AFC) no confidence motion, which is supported by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
Luncheon said that the President insists that he has acted to preserve the life of the Tenth Parliament and specifically to ensure its continued existence to address the outstanding issues of the day. Some of this issues, -which included the Anti-money Laundering Bill among others- he said, are unresolved or being resolved at Parliament level currently.
The Opposition, Luncheon pointed out, has however railed against the President’s action.
Shortly after the President closed Parliament’s doors on Monday, the Opposition parties registered their discontent. They posited that the citizens’ representatives were being denied discussing burning issues. They charged that closing Parliament meant closing the doors to dialogue. The Opposition which appeared to have been caught off guard by the President’s decision protested outside Parliament Buildings and had to regroup to draft the way forward.
Luncheon said the Administration was not surprised by the reactions, threats and warnings of the opposing sides following the President’s announcement.
When questioned about the Opposition’s unwavering decree of silence following Parliament’s closing, Luncheon told reporters that “similar circumstances that occurred did not prevent a reasonable outcome eventually.” He said he does not believe that unless time proves otherwise “these initial reactions… should be taken to the bank.”
“I don’t believe that in the run of the mill, in the conventional politics of Guyana and this world that a crisis, -and I call this a mini crisis will persist. I will concede that the hype, the language, certainly will have us think that we are on the verge of World War 3.”
The Cabinet Secretary said however that he recognizes that mature actions could prevail over time. That is what the six- month period is supposed to do, Luncheon said, as he opined that the drafters of the Constitution provided the six- month break for contemplation, advice and mature considerations.
Luncheon said that the President’s action thwarted the involuntary dissolution of Parliament, which would have been inevitable following the guaranteed no-confidence vote against the Ramotar Administration.
The President had conferred initially that his Administration was ready to defend the opposition’s no-confidence motion. Luncheon urged however the unlikelihood of an adequate defence (by the government) changing the outcome of the opposition’s intention. “I think we could debate, but I have… strong reason to believe that there wasn’t any likelihood that reason would prevail…”
Dr. Luncheon stated that the government is actively pursuing a media campaign to address what seem to be the concerns of the opposition and citizenry. He said that the many issues forwarded by the opposition have to be complied and viewed before it could be responded to. These issues include the opposition’s warning that during the six -month period, investors and others would not engage in any deals/contracts with the government since it will not have the support of the opposing side.
Dr Luncheon recognized however that the government could look towards inflexible positions, or given the context of the politics, whether flexibility needs to be encouraged during this period. He recognized merit in constant review of political developments to decide whether the Parliament’s doors should remain closed throughout the six months or whether other actions could be taken.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.