WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE ACTUALLY SAID.


Three differing interpretations of the Chief Justice’s ruling in the case of the Attorney General v David Granger and Raphael Trotman have been given. Attorney at Law Basil Williams of APNU said that the Chief Justice upheld the decision of the Speaker by allowing Home Affairs Minister to speak as a Member of the National Assembly but not as Minister of Home Affairs. The Attorney General said that the “gag” order made against Minister Rohee by the Speaker has been removed. The Speaker said that he is appealing the decision because he requires clarification but that in any event he is not bound by the Chief Justice’s ruling. All of these distinguished gentlemen cannot be right. So what really did the Chief Justice say?

Before answering the question some background is necessary.

Continue reading “WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE ACTUALLY SAID.”

ROHEE’S RIGHT TO SPEAK.


Had I been the Speaker, this is the ruling I would have given on the motion tabled in the National Assembly to prevent Minister Clement Rohee from speaking. It would have avoided the costly litigation just concluded before the Chief Justice in which he ruled that Rohee has the right to speak as a member of the National Assembly.

“On July 30, 2012, the Assembly passed a resolution, No. 18 of 2012, which stated in part “…..that the National Assembly censures and expresses ‘no confidence’ in the Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. Clement Rohee, M.P., over his inability to discharge his responsibility for public security and calls for the immediate revocation of his appointment as a Minister of the Government and for his dismissal from office.”

Continue reading “ROHEE’S RIGHT TO SPEAK.”

THE PPP’s ENDURING FEARS


Critics are baffled by what is alleged to be the reluctance of the PPP to accept that it is no longer in the majority since the 2011 elections. Their analysis, at its worst, suggests that an arrogant, hungry and driven elite, determined to dominate the reins of office, seek to remain entrenched in power for its own sake, in order to continue to plunder and, not least, to assure protection from prosecution.This analysis is superficial and fails to recognize the deeper realities that motivate the approaches of the PPP to the issues of governance in the new environment and indeed in the pre-2011 dispensation, even if it was then less noticeable.

There are no doubt subjective factors within the Party leadership which influence some policy choices and attitudes, both before and after 2011. These may no doubt have been responsible for the negative features which have developed and which persist. Those are not defended here. But the objective realities of the political history of Guyana since 1953, and its impact on the PPP’s psyche, have profoundly influenced the direction and orientation of its basic approaches, even within the changing class composition of its leadership, which has impacted on some aspects of its policies, including those mentioned above. Only Cheddi Jagan’s transformational ideas occasionally broke through oppressive historical circumstances.

Continue reading “THE PPP’s ENDURING FEARS”

AUTONOMY OF THE PARLIAMENT


A Motion and a Bill, tabled by Khemraj Ramjattan of the AFC and Volda Lawrence of APNU respectively, relating to the autonomy of the Parliament Office, are before the National Assembly. The Motion resolves that a Special Select Committee be appointed to examine two sets of recommendations, one by Sir Michael Davies, a Commonwealth Senior Parliamentary Staff Adviser and the other by the Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project Final Framework and Guidelines Report by the World Bank, on the issue and advise the National Assembly on the steps to be taken to implement them.

These reports were unanimously approved by National Assembly in 2006. The Motion and the Bill appear to seek the implementation of the reports as they relate to autonomy of the Parliament Office.

Continue reading “AUTONOMY OF THE PARLIAMENT”

THE PPP AND THE CHALLENGES AHEAD


The election result and its aftermath

Four successive election victories of the Peoples Progressive Party (the Party) in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2006 were followed by the failure to obtain an absolute majority in 2011. It was unexpected and a shock and disappointment. Under the constitution the Party was entitled to the presidency and the president could appoint ministers from among members of the National Assembly, except for technocrats. The President opted for ministers from only the PPP, leading to a minority, rather than a coalition, majority supported government.

Some attempts have been made to consult with the opposition by way of a tripartite committee. In other respects, such as the budget, the government has declined to consult on the ground of its constitutional mandate to prepare and present the budget.  Mixed signals about consultations from the government, relentless attacks by the opposition and the inability of the government to control its parliamentary agenda, have all resulted in the government being unable to achieve its objectives, thus creating uncertainty and frustration all around.

Continue reading “THE PPP AND THE CHALLENGES AHEAD”