CONSULTATION OR CONFRONTATION?


Proroguing parliament is a legitimate constitutional device in Westminster constitutions, whatever its origins and the purpose for which it is used. Much of the time prorogation has been used for partisan purposes, has been unpopular and has incurred much opposition. The Governor prorogued the legislature in 1963 to cause the lapse of the Labour Relations Bill, which would have resulted in a poll in the sugar industry and ultimate recognition of the PPP aligned GAWU to represent sugar workers.

The President said that the objective of prorogation is to prevent confrontation and encourage consultation. The opposite will be the result. The Government’s life has come to a natural end because stalemate reigns everywhere. The renewal of the Government’s mandate, not perpetuation of its life, was the solution. A national unity government is another.

Continue reading “CONSULTATION OR CONFRONTATION?”

SLIPPING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR?


President Ramotar said in his address to the nation last week that if the Opposition persists with the no confidence motion, he will ‘prorogue or dissolve’ the National Assembly. These are two completely different options.

The proroguing of the National Assembly means the termination of this session only and all pending business, which is not postponed to the next session but concluded in their unfinished state. The prorogation can only last for up to six months and elections are not constitutionally mandated. A new session resumes by proclamation. There are political constraints as to how long, within the six-month period, the Government may wish to prorogue. A dissolution has the effect of terminating the life of the National Assembly. It has to be resumed in four months and cannot be resumed except after elections.

Continue reading “SLIPPING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR?”

NAVIN CHANDARPAL


Navin Chandarpal was one of Guyana’s best known public figures and politicians. His popularity was so extensive that most people who knew him well, even those who did not share his political views or allegiances, felt honoured to be considered by him as a friend. His relationship with people transcended politics. He had time for Party workers, comrades, his students and friends.

He never spoke, much less boasted, about what he did for the PPP, for the country or for others. I was talking to him at a function three years ago and a young woman came up. She embraced him warmly and exchanged pleasantries. She then turned to me and said that Navin was one of the most important persons in her life. She said that he was responsible for her success in obtaining her doctorate degree because it was he who encouraged and inspired her. He was visibly embarrassed by such lavish praise.

Continue reading “NAVIN CHANDARPAL”

THE SPEAKER CANNOT FIX A DATE – UNDER THE RULES OR BY PRACTICE


The Clerk to the National Assembly has sought, in a letter to the press, to answer my article last Sunday in which I contended that the Speaker must convene the National Assembly now. My argument was that the National Assembly, when adjourned without a date being fixed, must sit on the next sitting day pursuant to Standing Order 8(1).

The word ‘convene’ may be causing some difficulty. The Speaker cannot actually ‘convene’ by fixing a date for the sitting. As the Clerk says, and as I pointed out last week, he has no power to do so. By virtue of Standing Order 8(1), the Speaker must instruct the Clerk to ‘convene’ a sitting of the National Assembly, that is to say, to administratively set up a sitting on the ‘next sitting day’ in accordance with Standing Order 8(1). The Speaker has no power to fix any other date other than the ‘next sitting day’.

Continue reading “THE SPEAKER CANNOT FIX A DATE – UNDER THE RULES OR BY PRACTICE”

THE SPEAKER IS OBLIGED TO CONVENE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NOW!


There appears to be no consensus among parliamentary parties about a date for the first sitting of the National Assembly after the just concluded recess.

There also appears to be some confusion as to the procedure by which the National Assembly is to be convened. It is claimed that the Government has to make a request of the Speaker. The AFC, on the other hand, relies on Standing Order (S.O.) 8(2) which permits the Speaker, if in his opinion the public interest so requires, to convene the National Assembly to a day earlier than that to which it stands adjourned. Under this S.O. the pre-requisite for the Speaker’s intervention is that a date must have already been fixed, which is not the situation. The AFC also relies on the Opposition’s has 51 percent of the seats. The Opposition Leader says that it is out of their hands.

Continue reading “THE SPEAKER IS OBLIGED TO CONVENE THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NOW!”