Hours after contentious ‘approval’ President Ali secretly signs new oil fund law

Jan 01, 2022 News

---

…calls in cameras next day to assent to Local Content Bill

Kaieteur News – Guyanese across the country are at odds with regard the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) Natural Resources Bill, 2021, as to whether or not it was lawfully approved in the National Assembly on the evening of Wednesday, December 29.

There are arguments for and against it. Despite the public debate, Head of State, President Irfaan Ali, had, mere hours after the raucous session, formally assented to the Bill, thereby bringing it into law— with the final step being its publication in the Official Gazette.
As such, the way has now been cleared for the government to utilise as much as 100 percent of the funds in the Natural Resource Fund, held in the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, yesterday gave the confirmation in a public posting ahead of the official publication in the Gazette.
According to a copy of the signed Bill, now an Act of Law, it was signed on December 30, 2021—hours after the Bill was approved by the Government Members of the National Assembly, with a vote put by Speaker of the House, Manzoor Nadir.
Minister Nandlall captioned his depiction of the signed Act with the caption: “For the avoidance of any doubt…”
It should be noted that this Act is yet to be published in the Gazette; nor was it done in public view as was done yesterday when he signed into law, a second piece of legislation—the Local Content Bill.
Surrounded by government ministers and key private sector stakeholders and the flashing and recording cameras, President Ali told those in attendance, “this Bill, is a Bill that is alive and it’s a start in what will be a dynamic journey. Because, as you are aware, we are now at the infancy stage and the development of the oil and gas sector will bring with it changes. So the Bill itself will be alive, a bill that will be used ever so often in the context of our own development in the oil and gas sector.”
Meanwhile Substantive Opposition Leader, Joseph Harmon in a public statement, after Speaker Nadir defended the Bill as lawfully approved, argued otherwise.
Harmon instead contended that Nadir by his own admission, indicated that the conditions had not been met for the lawful passage of the Bill.
On Thursday morning as reporters bombarded the Speaker with private calls, enquiring into whether the Bill was lawfully passed, given the publicly expressed consternations by members of the political opposition, he hosted an impromptu press conference to clear the air.
In his defense of the lawful passage of the Bill, he told media operatives, that on his ascension to office, he had foreseen the need for a replica Mace, and it was made.
He went on to explain that in Parliamentary and other Westminster systems of government, such as in the United Kingdom and Canada, “they have two Maces.”
To this end, the Speaker told media operatives, “we have two Maces also” and went on to explain that when he ascended to that office, he had set about exploring preparations for any likely occurrences to be had in the National Assembly.

One such decision taken, according to Nadir, “was to have another Mace, in the event the traditional Mace could not be found to put in place whenever parliament sits; we have another Mace.”
As such, he said it was the smaller Mace, the replica that had been made which was used during the session in question.
According to Nadir, the Mace was in place “shortly before I put the question on the NRF.”
He said too, “I called for members to take their seats, since MPs are only permitted, under the standing orders to vote from their seats in Parliament.”
He was, as such, insistent that the two ingredients necessary for lawful passage of Bills were present — a Mace was in place and that the vote was taken while the government members were in their seats.
He elucidated further, “…for the authority to conduct its business and to ensure the business is lawful and legal, two main ingredients must be present, (and) we to have a quorum and two, the authority, (and) the Mace must be in place.”
Harmon in response to the Speaker said, “in his bid to suggest that the Bill was legally passed, the Speaker made some striking revelations which contradicts his efforts.”
He explained that “the Speaker told the nation that the Mace and a Quorum are the two main ingredients that constitute a sitting of the National Assembly, and he is correct. However, as we have stated and the speaker acknowledged, the Mace of the National Assembly was not in place when they attempted to pass the Natural Resource Bill of 2021.”
To this end, he said the Speaker’s statement that Guyana has two Maces is appalling and simply untrue and that the replica referred to by the Speaker is a miniature Mace, which was made for the hosting of Guyana’s National Youth Parliament and holds no authority in the sitting of the National Assembly.
He further contends that there is no rule that provides for the use of a replica Mace in the National Assembly as being touted by the Speaker.
“The Speaker cannot simply decide to pick up something and replace the official Mace of the National Assembly when the rules clearly state that if the Mace is not in the house absolutely no business can be done. Again, I say there is no provision for use of a replica or substitute Mace.”

According to Harmon, Nadir’s “ramblings that other parliaments in the Westminster system especially in the United Kingdom and Canada have two maces are simply malicious and misleading.”
He cited as example, in the United Kingdom there are a total of 13 Royal Maces, three of which are on loan to the Houses of Parliament—one in the House of Commons and two in the House of Lords.
None of these, he said, serves as replacements or replicas of the other.
He argued further that on numerous occasions in the House of Lords, MPs removal of the Mace was a sign of disagreement with what was happening in the House and that once this occurred the proceedings were halted until the Mace was returned to its rightful position.
Citing Canada, Harmon noted that in their House of Commons one Mace is used which dates back to 1917.
“This mace replaced the original House of Commons Mace that was destroyed in a fire on February 3rd, 1916.”
He explained that “there was a temporary Mace which was made of painted wood and metal that was used after the fire in 1916 until the current Mace was presented to the then Canadian Prime Minister in 1917.”
He maintained that the temporary Mace is only used on February 3rd of every year to commemorate the fire and as such “that Mace is not used as a replacement if someone moves the Mace during a sitting of the House.”
Harmon was unwavering in his position, “the house sitting cannot be held if the Mace is not in place.”
In the circumstances he posited, “…the Speaker’s reference of two Maces in Westminster Parliaments reeks of sheer desperation on his part to make sense of the illegality he masterminded on behalf of his bosses.”

 

 

 

 

---

---