The National Assembly on Monday night committed the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill to a special select committee even as Attorney General, Anil Nandlall said that the Bill is incapable of correction and could not be supported by Government because it breaches the Constitution.
Tabled by A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Volda Lawrence on June 27, 2012, the Bill seeks to confer on the office of the Clerk of the National Assembly the power to hire its own staff and the authority to manage its affairs outside of the direction of the state. It sets out the responsibilities and authority of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly and provides for the establishment and administration of an independent Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly of Guyana.
“The Bill is requested to go to a select committee. I know we will be able to deal with any issues with regards to constitutionality,” said Lawrence.
She said that the Bill must be placed in perspective since it has its origins in the agreement between the political parties in Guyana following the 1997 elections. She said that it is also based on studies by parliamentary consultants who made various recommendations for the more democratic functioning of the National Assembly.
“Today we have an opportunity to change the counterproductive and unconstitutional path. I ask that this Bill goes to a special select committee,” she stated.
Rising to speak, Nandlall said that the Bill was not only unnecessary but also a violation of the Constitution. He said that Guyana’s Constitution dating back to the 1966 edition and the 1970 and 1980 updates have provisions for the office of the Clerk of the National Assembly.
“If a matter is provided for in the superior law, to put it in an ordinary piece of legislation is to dilute it,” he said. Nandlall added that the functions of the Clerk of the National Assembly are also set out in the Standing Orders. He said that if there is any need to improve the functions of the Office, then the rules could be tweaked but legislation is unnecessary.
He is of the opinion that the Bill violates article 57 of the Constitution in that it allows for the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to appoint a Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly. He said too that the Bill imposes responsibility on the Speaker that the Constitution does not impose.
He pointed out that the Bill gives the President the power to remove or suspend the Clerk, something that he said the Constitution does not do. Nandlall said that the Bill contemplates a charge on the Consolidated Fund, to wit the functioning of the Office of the Clerk.
But to this statement, Speaker Raphael Trotman said that this was not exactly a new charge since this office already exists.
Khemraj Ramjattan of the Alliance For Change said that his party supports the Bill going to a select committee where the “nitty gritty” could be ironed out.
In his ruling on the admissibility of the Bill, Speaker Trotman on August 9, 2012 in response to a letter of objection by Nandlall said that the Bill “directly touches” on some constitutional provisions as pointed out by the Attorney General.
He said that while the President and the National Assembly have a duty to ensure that all Bills meet the constitutional qualifications and threshold, the High Court has to rule on constitutionality as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
“It is in my humble opinion therefore that this National Assembly has both the legal and moral duty to introduce and pass Bills that are not in contravention with the Constitution,” the Speaker said in his ruling.
