Dear Editor,
Mr. Ralph Ramkarran SC, contends that the Prime Minister is entitled to sit in Parliament while performing the functions of President. He writes in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek “there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a Prime Minister loses his/her position as Prime Minister or member of Parliament while performing the functions of President”.
Mr. Ramkarran reviews a number of constitutional provisions to support his argument. However, he omits the most relevant one. It is Article 51. It provides “there shall be a Parliament of Guyana which shall consist of a President and a National Assembly.”
When the Prime Minister or anyone else is performing the functions of President he is clothed with all the powers, privileges and immunities of the President and is obliged to discharge all the functional responsibilities which devolve upon the office of President. Significantly, during this period, that person is the constituent other half of Parliament; the National Assembly being the other part thereof, as per Article 51 of the Constitution. Therefore the framers of the Constitution could not and could never have contemplated a person standing in the shoes and performing the functions of President ever being part of the National Assembly. After all, the person who stands in the shoes of the President is empowered to assent to bills passed by the National Assembly. If Mr. Ramkarran is correct it means that the Prime Minister can sit in the National Assembly, participate in the legislative exercise of speaking and voting on a bill and then perform the presidential function of assenting to it. I respectfully submit that such a conversion of the Prime Minister into a constitutional amphibian committing constitutional incest can never meet the litmus test of constitutionality.
A few years ago an analogous situation arose in the Judiciary. The Chief Justice was appointed to perform the functions of the Chancellor. The holder of the office proceeded to simultaneously perform both functions. There was a constitutional challenge to it. The High Court ruled that the office holder cannot function in both offices.
Similarly I maintain that the Prime Minister cannot function as an elected member of the National Assembly while he is performing the functions of President. Fortunately, the Government does not share Mr Ramkarran’s view and the Prime Minister did not participate in the business of the National Assembly.
It is neither a question of practice nor convention but one of law.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall
