Dear Editor,
Under the Guyana Constitution, the President has no role in the day-to-day management of the National Assembly’s business, save for Article 67. Article 67 (1) allows that, “The President may at any time attend and address the National Assembly.” And Article 67 (2) allows that, “The President may send messages to the National Assembly and any such message shall be read, at the first convenient sitting of the Assembly after it is received, by the Prime Minister or by any other Minister designated by the President.” Article 68 goes on to say that, “All other matters concerning Parliament (including the procedures thereof shall be regulated by the provisions of articles 165-172 (inclusive).”
A perusal of these articles –“165-172 (inclusive)” – will reveal the President is only mentioned again in Article 170, which is guided by Article 164. Article 170 (1) expressly states that, “Subject to the provisions of Article 164, the power of the Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President.” Article 170 (2) to (6) goes on to stipulate the procedure for submitting bills, assenting, non-assenting, measures that ought to be taken to secure the assent of any Bill to which the president did not assent, and how a bill becomes law.
Under Articles 69 and 70 the president is vested the authority to summon, prorogate and dissolve Parliament, which is separate and distinct from his recent act of immersing himself in the management of the National Assembly. The principal titled holders in the National Assembly are: 1) the prime minister, who according to Article 101 “…shall be the principal assistant of the President in the discharge of his executive functions and leader of Government business in the National Assembly.” 2) the speaker and deputy speaker whose roles are outlined in Article 157; 3) the leader of the opposition, whose election to office is outlined in Article 184 (1); and 4) the clerk and deputy clerk as stipulated in Article 158.
According to this constitution, the president and leader of the opposition are not authorities unto themselves and the people are given protection under this very instrument to hold them accountable. Their constant appraisals in office are not only determined through national elections, but through various means, one of which includes via the people’s representatives in the National Assembly. While Article 106 (6) allows for a confidence motion to be placed in the executive/government, Article 184 (3) to (5) stipulates how the leader of the opposition can be removed from office and, Article 180 guides the procedure for the removal of the president if it is considered he has committed any violation of the constitution or any gross misconduct.
Contrary to the belief of some, elected officials are not above being held to account. In normal societies, where the people are vigilant, these recall powers entrusted to them under the constitution, would have been taken seriously by their elected leaders.
The President is out of order when he sought to thrust himself into the day-to-day functioning of the Assembly, when he has no power or authority to do so. Article 168 (1) said, “Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.” The Standing Orders outlines how the Assembly sits.
Article 50 is clear in making known the supremacy of the parliament over the president and cabinet. And while it would have been customary for the leader of government business to state the date when the Assembly reconvenes, in the absence of the executive/government side having majority control of the Assembly, that responsibility should have been assumed by the leader of the opposition on whose side the expressed majority will of the people reside. The speaker is the political head/chair of the Assembly. The clerk of the National Assembly is the executive/administrative head.
What is clearly coming over is the absence of an understanding of scope and responsibilities, laws and procedures guiding professional conduct, or the downright contempt for these established institutions. The efforts to ensure the financial independence of the Assembly/Parliament is laudable and must be pursued with due diligence. This nation continues to be held hostage to a group of elected leaders who haven’t got a clue what they are doing and seemingly are making no effort to familiarise themselves. An end must be brought to the disregard/contempt for the people and their institutions.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
