Speaker must provide list of MPs he said voted for NRF Bill

Jan 03, 2022 News

---

…Forde says coalition exploring legal challenge
Kaieteur News- The main opposition, APNU+AFC is calling on the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, to produce the list of Members of Parliament (MPs) who voted in favour of the new Natural Resources Fund Bill, which will govern the finances garnered from oil and gas sector.
In an interview with this publication, Attorney-at-Law and MP, Roysdale Forde explained that the Speaker of the House has laid out the grounds for the passage of the Bill to be challenged legally, during his own press conference last Thursday.
On December 30, 2021, Mr. Nadir hosted a press conference where he told media o

peratives that in order for the Bill to be considered approved—with the 33 members of the government voting in favour of the Bill, inclusive of its 47 Articles and Two schedules—there only needed to be a quorum for the sitting and for the Mace to be in place. He went on to explain that on his ascension to office, he had foreseen the need for a replica Mace, and so it was made.
Section Seven (1) of the Standing Orders indeed states that “The quorum of the Assembly and of a Committee of the Whole Assembly shall consist of one–third of all the elected Members (excluding the Member in the Chair)”.
When it comes to the symbol of authority in Parliament, the Mace, Attorney Forde argued that the Standing Order makes no provision for a replica to be used.
According to him, “I believe that the press conference with the Speaker himself, explained the potential ground for (legal) challenges. He said the Mace was not there and that he used a replica of the Mace. If you check Parliament’s website, there is a statement there that without the Mace in the House no proceedings or laws can be passed”.
Forde added, “There’s no basis for a replica. There’s no provisions for that. If you check the website you would see the discussions on the Mace. They would show you the Mace and that has been recognised by the Parliament as the Mace. That’s the only thing that is the Mace. So he could have taken a piece of wood and four eggs out of his pocket and called it the Mace then. The Mace is what is recognised as the Mace and that (replica) has not been recognised by custom or tradition, as being the Mace”.
Moreover, the MP said he believes the replica that was used in Parliament on Wednesday when the Bill was passed was something “created” by the Speaker or gifted to him by “certain segments of society” to be used only for display purposes for students, or persons participating in mock debates.
With regard to the quorum required for the Bill to be passed, Forde said that the Speaker himself would have agreed that several MPs were not in their seats when the voting took place, amid whistle-blowing, placard protesting Opposition MPs.
“Shortly before I put the question on the Natural Resource Bill and it’s there live on the recording, I called for Members to take their seats, because a person can only speak or vote from their seat. And I kept monitoring and I noticed that they had almost all of the Government members in their seats,” the Speaker said during his Press Conference.
In this regard, Forde argued that the Speaker here would have admitted that some government MPs were not in their seats when the voting took place to pass the controversial Bill. “There were MPs joining virtually. The Speaker would have to indicate whether those MPs were afforded the right to vote given that they were cut off during the process,” the Attorney said.
Even more importantly, Forde said that Mr. Nadir must produce a list of the MPs whose votes were counted. “If you are voting, then you must be in your seat, so the Speaker would have to indicate where the MPs were, and who the MPs were that voted in favour of the Bill,” he contended.
The Opposition representative further pointed out, “These are all questions that the Speaker himself would have to answer and every time he opens his mouth on the issue, he raises more questions than answers. He actually indicates clearly for the country to see that there were gross irregularities that went to the core of the proceedings, the core of the viability and legality of the proceedings”.
Section 49 of the Standing Orders of Parliament allows for the ‘Collection of Voices’ for the process of voting. Section 49 (1) says that “At the conclusion of a debate upon any question the Speaker or Chairperson shall put that question for the decision of the Assembly, and shall collect the voices of the Ayes and of the Noes, after which no further debate may take place upon that question”.
Section 49 (2) goes on to explain that the result shall be declared by the Speaker or Chairperson stating “I think the Ayes have it” or “I think the Noes have it” as the case may be; however any elected Member of Parliament may challenge the opinion, by claiming a ‘division’.
Section 50 (1) points out that “If a division is claimed, it shall be taken by the Clerk calling each elected Member’s name and asking each such Member separately how he or she desires to vote and recording the vote accordingly. The Clerk shall then announce the number of those who have voted for, those who voted against the proposal and those who declined to vote and the Speaker or Chairperson shall declare the result of the division”.
The Opposition MPs resorted to protest action in the National Assembly, after their calls were ignored for the NRF Bill to be sent to a special select committee, which would allow for, not only consultations on the legislation, but also proper consideration of the citizenry, given that the Bill was tabled just about two weeks only, before it came up for debates.
Former Minister of Public Infrastructure and Shadow Oil and Gas Minister, David Patterson had told Kaieteur News that due to the nature of the bill, it was only fitting that the National Assembly and the nation at large be given three months to fully scrutinise the document that contains more than 30 pages of information.
In addition to Opposition calling for more time, this newspaper was told that a civil society group had also submitted a petition to the House for the Bill to be sent to a special select committee. This petition was reportedly signed by over 60 individuals but was also ignored by the PPP/C Administration that used its one-seat majority to ram it through the House Wednesday night.
Loopholes
Since the Bill was tabled on December 16, Kaieteur News has been at the forefront of highlighting some of the key loopholes that could give way to massive corruption, borrowing frenzies, as well as spending sprees.
In the Bill, there are various methods of calculations for the withdrawal of the nation’s oil dollars. But if there is a major natural disaster, the government has the power to override those rules in place and withdraw any amount it deems fit for the said emergency. Importantly, there is no provision that caters for any abuse of this “emergency” mechanism.
Despite heavy criticism, the PPP/C Government has remained steadfast in its belief that there is no need for specific penalties for the misuse of oil revenues. According to the administration, the existing laws such as the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) are more than enough to address any malfeasance in public office.
It is significant to note however, that while the Ali administration insists that there is no need to outline explicit penalties for abuse or misuse of funds in the legislation, its counterpart Ghana, which it claimed to have consulted on the NRF law, has shown a completely different approach toward the protection of the nation’s oil revenues.
According to Ghana’s legislation governing its Petroleum Fund, “A person who (a) misappropriates the Petroleum Funds; (b) defrauds, attempts to defraud or conspires with another person to defraud the Republic in relation to the Petroleum Funds; (c) uses, attempts to use or conspires with another person to use information on the Petroleum Funds or documents relating to the Petroleum Funds for personal benefit or advantage or for the personal advantage or benefit of another person, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five hundred thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years or to both.”

---

---