Author: ChrisRam

Posted on

Twelve priorities for the coalition

I extend to the APNU and the AFC congratulations on the historic agreement to contest the upcoming elections as a joint entity. Whilst I am disappointed that the negotiations appear to have centred not around the programmes necessary to restore to Guyana good governance, democracy and the welfare of the people but around how the fruits of electoral success will be divided, I am yet pleased with the outcome.

The decades-old domination first by the PNC and then by the PPP have validated the age-old saying that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Of course, power also reveals and it would be interesting to witness how those who had not previously held political power would operate in any new dispensation following the May 11, 2015 elections.

I am not unmindful of the fact that the AFC’s Mr. Moses Nagamootoo served as a minister in the PPP government and that the party’s leader Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan was a leading member of that party prior to leaving to form the AFC.

I believe I share with my fellow Guyanese the optimism that the cloud of lawlessness, corruption, favouritism, nepotism, abuse of office and the pursuit of personal wealth which appears to have afflicted many in the ruling class, will now lift. I am writing this letter to share with the leadership of the APNU and the AFC my own thoughts on some of the priorities which I would like to see established should they win the elections and form the government.

Before I do so, however, I wish to seek clarification on one of the issues on which agreement was announced. The APNU it is stated will have the presidency and one position of Vice-President while the Prime Minister will come from the AFC which will also have two positions of Vice-President. Under the Constitution the Prime Minister is a Vice President, “and he shall have precedence over any other Vice President”: Article 102 of the Constitution.
Continue reading “Twelve priorities for the coalition”

Posted on

Justice Chang’s decision on disapprovals

Introduction
Chief Justice acting Mr. Ian Chang last Friday gave his decision on the case brought by Mr. David Granger, Leader of the Opposition in the matter concerning the spending of money on programmes contained in the 2014 Budget expressly disapproved by the National Assembly. Two men not unknown to take their professional image very seriously, Attorney General Mr. Anil Nandlall and the shadow Attorney General have been on television both claiming victory! Yet, notwithstanding the highly technical discussion on questions about declaratory orders as opposed to conservatory orders, some things are very clear:

1. That the Minister of Finance acted in violation of the Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability in spending the sum of $4,553 million for purposes specifically disapproved by the National Assembly. Note that this spending was up to June 16, 2014

2. That the Court has no jurisdiction to restrict any authority granted on the executive by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament since “to do so would be to violate the doctrine of the separation of powers which indubitably inheres in the Constitution of Guyana.”

3. That the Minister cannot use one article of the Constitution to engage in spending that is disapproved under any other article.

4. That support of expenditure in 2012 and 2013 in similar circumstances did not mean that no court challenge could be brought in respect of 2014.

5. That the breach of constitutional authority regarding expenditure in 2014 is not a proper basis to fear that the government would exceed the limits of their authority in respect of any other period.

6. That the Court is more concerned about form rather than substance. There can be no other explanation for the decision by the court to deny on procedural grounds an application in respect of expenditure on disapproved programmes for 2014 that the court considers to be in violation of article 219 (3) of the Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003.

7. That having found that the Minister of Finance violated the Constitution and the law the court passed the buck regarding any cure or sanction by ruling that those are matters for the internal affairs of the National Assembly!
Continue reading “Justice Chang’s decision on disapprovals”

Posted on

Proclamations have been backdated

On Monday a colleague sent me an email with the subject ‘Proclamation’ and directing me to the website of the Official Gazette at http://officialgazette.gov.gy/. On going to the site I found Legal Supplement B of the Official Gazette which contains two proclamations signed by Dr Roger Luncheon setting May 11, 2015 as the date for the elections of the members of the National Assembly and the Regional Democratic Councils.

The date of the Gazette is shown as 24th January, 2015 which was surprising enough to cause me to do some checking. On further examination I realised that the Gazette was posted up late afternoon of February 9. To satisfy myself further I checked with the Law Library, the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Parliament Library early today (10th February) and learnt that none of those key government offices had a copy of a Gazette Legal Supplement B bearing the date January 24.

I then checked with the Office of the President where I learnt that the impugned Gazette was delivered to them yesterday February 10. Clearly the Gazette containing the two Proclamations was backdated for reasons known only to the President, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Mr Anil Nandlall, whose face adorns the Official Gazette page. That this was obviously backdating is also evident from the fact that the Legal Supplement B of the Gazette of January 24 appears at the top of the page after the Official Gazette of January 31 and February 7.

With this kind of conduct and ethical behaviour, we should not be surprised at the state of our country.

Meanwhile the proclamations dissolving the Parliament and the Regional Democratic Councils have still not been published.

Posted on

Unravelling the mystery of the elections date

Introduction
Ever since December 6, 2014 the naming of a date for general elections has become a circus of cynicism by the government. Let us recall some background information: the National Assembly last met on July 10, one month before its two-month recess which began on August 10 and ended on October 10. Even after the recess ended the government was not enthusiastic about the reconvening of the National Assembly once the Alliance for Change tabled a motion of no-confidence against it.

On November 10 2014, the date designated by the President for the National Assembly to reconvene, he instead issued a proclamation proroguing the National Assembly thus suspending parliamentary democracy and oversight over the executive, key components of Guyana’s constitutional framework. The President explained the reason behind the prorogation as the opportunity it afforded the opposition parties in the National Assembly to engage the government in discussions outside of the Assembly, failing which the government would dissolve it and proceed to elections.

The Leader of the Opposition demurred and as early as December 6, the President announced his intention to dissolve the National Assembly with a view to elections. However, out of a misplaced regard for people’s enjoyment of Christmas, the President said that he would wait until early in 2015 to name an elections date.
Continue reading “Unravelling the mystery of the elections date”

Posted on

President’s announcement of elections date did not comply with constitutional or legal requirements

We note the announcement by President Ramotar that he has named May 11, 2015 as the date for general elections. We are concerned however that the announcement did not address the status of the Tenth Parliament which was prorogued on November 10, 2014 nor did it comply with the constitutional requirement for the naming of the date of elections.

It is our view that the life of the Tenth Parliament can only come to an end by dissolution and the naming of the date for elections done by way of a proclamation.

Prorogation of the Parliament is done under Article 70 by proclamation and while the Constitution does not expressly so state, it is our opinion that a proclamation is required either to re-convene or to dissolve the Parliament. And in relation to the naming of the date for elections, article 61 of the Constitution explicitly requires a proclamation by the President.

If we can call attention to earlier years and specifically the 2011 elections, there were four proclamations as follows:

27 September: Dissolving Parliament.

27 September: Dissolving the ten Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs).

9 October: Setting 28 November as date for parliamentary elections.

9 October: Setting 28 November as date for election of members of RDCs.

It is our opinion that until similar proclamations are issued the announcement made by the President on Tuesday January 21, naming May 11 as the date for elections has no legal or constitutional effect. As citizens we find it totally unacceptable that the President in his rather extensive address did not discuss the issue of the Tenth Parliament, leaving the country in continuing uncertainty in respect of the Parliament and to his intention to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.

The President needs to remove the uncertainty and take the logical steps which the Constitution requires.

Alissa Trotz
Christopher Ram