Dear Editor,
In response to your news article, “AFC to press Speaker on Parliament date – Ramjattan cites Ramkarran opinion, separation of powers,” (October 20), I believe that although the country continues to sail uncharted waters since November 28, 2011, the AFC appears to be doing the toughest part of the work trying to prevent the country from continuing to sail in a direction certain local political pirates want to take it for further plundering.
The AFCs emerging role as a guide and guardian of the ship of state is being applauded by some and scorned by others, but because it was elected to Parliament, it has no choice but to execute its duty and be seen to be doing so, especially with the no-confidence vote.
I have closely followed the entire no-confidence vote saga, which started when the Finance Minister disobeyed Parliament and spent $4.5 billion dollars in the first six months of this year on line items Parliament voted down in the 2014 Budget, thus forcing the AFC to take both legal and political action.
Just prior to that, there was a testy exchange between Auditor General, Mr. Deodat Sharma, and APNU Shadow Finance Minister, Mr. Carl Greenidge, over who should take the lead role in bringing legal action against government officials for illegalities exposed in the Auditor General’s annual reports, but APNU never really seemed eager to take any action.
So when the AFC decided to go with the no-confidence motion, it showed the AFC, despite its smaller parliamentary status, as being more willing than APNU to take on the corrupt PPP, and that was when public support for AFC’s decision gained traction. APNU, to our pleasant surprise, publicly declared its support for the initiative, which was held in abeyance during the August recess.
While waiting, a bombshell letter was sent from APNU’s David Granger to President Donald Ramotar urging that he set a date by September 15, 2014, for the staging of Local Government Elections or else APNU would commence a series of protests. Observers were caught off-guard and couldn’t make sense of the timing and objective since the no-confidence vote, once passed with APNU’s support, would have eventually led to General and Regional Elections, thus negating the need for LGE. Some quickly surmised it was a two-pronged attack to force the PPP regime to face the electorate one way or other. There will be no escaping.
Unfortunately, with all the hypothetical scenarios being painted, time has finally caught up with everybody and nobody seems to know what next to do. October 10 should have marked the end of the August recess and the adjournment of Parliament should have, at least, ended with its reconvening. Traditionally, the PM informs the Speaker to set a date for reconvening, but that did not happen, and the AFC, eager to drop its nuclear option, the no-confidence vote, on the PPP regime, appears to be stymied by the non-reconvening of the House.
Some observers believe the stymieing is the result of political gamesmanship by the PPP to avoid facing the no-confidence vote, while others are of the opinion that lawyer-laden APNU either does not know its rights and role in this dilemma or is colluding with the PPP to avoid the no-confidence vote in exchange for the staging of LGE, thus taking the wind out of the AFCs sail. Regardless of which belief holds water, the bone of contention turned out to be whether the government or the Speaker can convene Parliament; hence the AFC is now pressing the Speaker.
As both Messrs. Christopher Ram and Ralph Ramkarran have posited in a weekend letter and column, respectively, and contrary to the Clerk of the National Assembly that parties cannot lobby for reconvening of the Assembly, the Assembly can be convened by the Speaker, if he is of the opinion that a matter of public interest requires the attention of the Assembly.
Articles 8.1 and 8.2 pretty much lay out the process by which the Assembly can be reconvened, and it is clear that the Speaker does have the authority to reconvene the Assembly without waiting on the executive branch for a green light. Additionally, the no-confidence motion, which is a holdover from the last session, qualifies as a matter of public interest because it was proposed by the AFC and is being publicly backed by APNU, thus making both parties the representative majority on this issue of public interest.
So where do we go from here? The AFC has to keep pushing for the reconvening of Parliament to have its no-confidence vote passed. APNU has to stop sending mixed signals or appearing confused, because even if it is using its position as a pivotal backer to leverage for a more winnable LGE than general and regional elections, it still has to contend with the last of the four LG bills Parliament passed but the President refuses to assent to. That last bill is what would grant autonomy to local government organs and end the central government’s ability to run political interference via its LG Minister, as is being done right now. And the PPP has to consider that while it may live to fight another day, its days are numbered, unless APNU/PNC saves it.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
