Legality of prorogation of Parliament still up for debate

Nov 19, 2014 News

---

– Top legal minds ask for time to peruse the Constitution

By Zena Henry
Despite President Donald Ramotar’s prorogation of the National Assembly almost two weeks ago, and varying views being

expressed on the matter as it relates to democracy, constitutionality and morality, among others, the legality of the President’s action is still up for debate.
This has been the contention of one of the country’s most outspoken commentators, Attorney-at-law, Consultant and former Presidential advisor Ramon Gaskin.
With analysis such as the President’s action to prorogue being “constitutional but undemocratic,” floating around, some of the country’s top legal professions are still to confirm or rather peruse the Constitution to bring some perspective to the issue.
During several attempts by this newspaper to access legal opinion from those believed to be some of the country’s top heavyweights in the legal arena, they have all now sought to engage the Constitution before making an interpretation, while some have outright declined to “get involved” in the discussion.
Gaskin told Kaieteur News earlier in the week that the President’s decision to prorogue Parliament in the face of the no-confidence motion is illegal since he has “unlawfully” shut the Parliament; silencing the majority-based opposition. He is of the view that the President cannot use his power to prorogue once the House has expressed no–confidence in his Administration.
“The President ought to allow Article 106 of the Constitution to work. This Article says that once the House has no-confidence in the Administration, then they will vote, and depending on what the majority vote says, that shall manifest. For the President to use Article 70 – which says that the President can prorogue Parliament at anytime – in isolation or without consideration of Article 106 is illegal.”
The executive cannot frustrate the legislative, he charged, especially when the majority of the House (representatives of the majority of citizens) have expressed no confidence in their methods of governance.
Retired Attorney General, Chancellor of the Judiciary and Senior Counsel Keith Massiah opted to stay far from the growing debate. He told Kaieteur News when contacted, that “I don’t want to get involved.” He said a lot has been said pertaining to the matter and he refuses to get in.
Attorney-at-law Edward Luckhoo told the publication that he has not had time to peruse the Constitution and would not want to comment on Parliament’s prorogation without seeing what it says. He said he would have to examine the comments that are being made and also examine what the law says. “This takes time,” he opined. He has promised however, to put his ideas forward on the issue.
Senior Council Rex Mc Kay is also interested in weighing in on the debate of legality, but he too has to familiarize himself with what the law on prorogation and the President’s powers say to make an informed analysis. He too has opted to interpret the situation.
Attorney-at-law Saphier Husain-Subedar, who recently won a court case against the country’s Top Cop over birth certificate requirements for national passports, is also willing to jump into the discussion. He has opted however, to review the statements being made, most of which purport that the President was in order when he shut the door to Parliamentary discussions.
Speaker of the National Assembly and Attorney-at-law Raphael Trotman believes that it is a good time for debate on the legality of the President’s action to be ongoing. For one thing, he claimed, the current situation is testing the fortitude of the Constitution.
The Speaker is of the view that the President’s action “violates the spirit of the Constitution.” The Constitution, he suggested, cannot be viewed at face value, but implied, that the interpretation of the law must be done with all the values and goodwill intended with its application.
Trotman believes however, that in the Constitution’s current state, it is being manipulated. And while he agrees with Ramon Gaskin’s interpretation that the expression of no-confidence should give way to the vote, he explained that there are parliamentary procedures which demand voting since the representatives can say one thing and do something else.
Trotman accepted the argument that the Constitution was written with a majority-based power possession system in Parliament. He believes that despite this being the case, the current Constitution might not be able to accommodate the history-making experience of having a minority government.
The Speaker opined that the President could be wrong for closing Parliament, but not necessarily illegal. He charged that many of the points argued by Gaskin are worth taking to Court. He suggested that the legality debate needs more energy and encouraged the use of the Court where legal arguments would have more weight.

---

---