The AFC is out of order

May 26, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The issue of persons being given custodial sentences for small amounts of marijuana is going to present a serious challenge to the stability of the coalition government. For the Alliance for Change (AFC), it has bearing on their independence and subservience to A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
The AFC has been accustomed since May 2015 to being bullied by APNU. The AFC has been unable to take an independent position on any issue of governance. The ‘marijuana’ issue is likely to become the straw which will break the camel’s back in the relationship between the AFC and APNU.
The AFC wants to move a Private Members’ Bill to amend the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, to allow persons found in possession of small quantities of marijuana to not have to face a mandatory prison sentence.
This is not the same as decriminalization, something that the opposition is getting confused over. Allowing for persons found with small quantities of marijuana to not be jailed does not decriminalize marijuana. It would still be an offence, but persons would not be subject to jail.
APNU is not in agreement with this position, even though they have not said so. It is for this reason that they are prevaricating when it comes to amending the law.
The AFC, on the other hand, wants the law to be amended. But they have become rubber stamps within the government and are unable to convince APNU to do so. As such, they find themselves in the absurd position of having to move a Private Members’ Bill.
Isn’t the AFC a part of the government? Why would they have to move a Private Members’ Bill when they are part of the government? It is not like when they were in the opposition in the 2011 parliament. If they cannot convince APNU to amend the law, then their position in the coalition has become further untenable, and they will be reducing themselves to political opportunists.
This column is of the view that a Private Members’ Bill cannot usurp the general responsibility of the government to introduce legislation. The role of the Executive is to exercise control over the administration of the government. The role of parliament is to pass laws.
However, there is and has always been an important distinction with respect to introducing and passing laws. While the legislature passes the law, the principal, not exclusive, obligation of introducing laws under a Westminster system has always been the responsibility of the government.
The administration of government is intrinsically tied up with the right to pursue its own legislative agenda. As such, the Executive has the right to introduce laws, since this is an integral part of governing. It would be tantamount to a reversal of roles if the government were to sit back and allow Private Members’ Bills to encroach on its domain.
It is true that the Constitution of Guyana allows for any member of the National Assembly to present a Bill. The specific provision of our Constitution speaks about any member tabling Private Members’ Bills, something that is not a novelty under Westminster constitutions.
Andy Williams, in his magisterial work, UK Government and Politics, page 89, notes that members of parliament who do not hold ministerial office have the facility of introducing Private Members’ Bills. He observes that governments often support such Bills in order to legislate controversial issues of social morality, such as a decision on abortion, the death penalty or homosexuality.
Such a Bill can be introduced in relation to the decriminalization of marijuana. But what the AFC is attempting is not to decriminalize marijuana, but to stipulate sentencing for varying amounts of marijuana. The AFC is attempting to intrude into the domain of the very government of which it is a part. It is out of order.