-as opposition walks out of Parliament over rejection of amendments by gov’t
A much vaunted agreement by national stakeholders with President Bharrat Jagdeo in February appeared to be in tatters yesterday after opposition parties stormed out of Parliament in protest at the government’s refusal to consider amendments to it in the spirit of compromise.
While the motion blessing the agreement was passed by the government benches, the support of the opposition parties would be required to give full effect to the range of measures that were agreed on February 19, 20, 27 and March 12 in the wake of the two massacres at Lusignan and Bartica.
The PNCR-1G, AFC and GAP-ROAR, while reaffirming their commitment to the agreements of the joint stakeholders’ forum, declared that the rejection yesterday of the amendments by the government side creates doubts about the seriousness of the ruling party in implementing the recommendations. As such, they said they would not participate in the parliamentary “charade”. Their action was severely criticized by speakers on the government side including Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, who said that the action would send “dangerous signals throughout the country”. It is unclear what will now be done to bridge the gap between the two sides. The stakeholders’ agreement had envisaged among other things the urgent approval of a new parliamentary standing committee on national security, the appointment of the six outstanding constitutional commissions and ensuring the meaningful participation of civil society in these parliamentary processes. The stakeholders comprised the religious organizations, private sector groups, a range of NGOs and the parliamentary parties.
The motion, tabled by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds sought to have the National Assembly take note of and accept the output of the national stakeholders meeting and to provide its fullest support and assign its highest priority in implementing commitments that called for action by parliamentary bodies. The walkout of the opposition parties came after the rejection of amendments to the motion.
After the introduction of the motion by Hinds, Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament, Raphael Trotman took the floor and recalled the series of national stakeholders meetings held after the massacres at Bartica and Lusignan in which 23 persons were killed. He said that Article 13 of the Constitution prevailed upon the gatherings. He said that an amendment for a reference to Article 13 to be included in the motion did not find favour with the governing party and this illustrated the uncompromising stance of the government. Article 13 which has been feverishly discussed in various fora over the last five years or so says “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being”.
Grandstanding
Trotman declared that the act of bringing the motion in such a manner is merely grandstanding and the AFC and GAP/ROAR would refuse to participate in what they consider a charade. He then led the walkout of those parties’ parliamentarians.
Speaking after Minister of Labour Manzoor Nadir, Leader of the opposition, PNCR leader Robert Corbin said that the PNCR fully endorses the approach taken by the government to have all stakeholders involved in the process and the agreements reached at the national stakeholders forum have the full support of his party. He noted however that what is required is implementation and it does not require a motion for implementation. He said that the motion had no teeth and referred to agreements signed before between the government and the opposition that were not implemented, stating that signing “is no guarantee of implementation”.
Corbin questioned what was objectionable about Article 13 and said that the rejection of this can only raise concerns about the genuine intention of the government to implement the recommendations made. “I will not be a part of this masquerade”, he stated. Corbin added that “it seems as if the parliament is being used as a convenience”. He declared that if the government was serious about the implementation “they can count on the cooperation of the PNCR”. He said that to continue in the debate would give the wrong impression “that all is bright and beautiful” and he then led the walkout of the PNCR-1G members to calls of ‘follow the leader’ from the government side of the house. A break was taken immediately following the walkout.
No consensus
Speaking with the media following the walkout Corbin said that the PNCR would not participate in an exercise “where nothing that we say matter in parliament”. He said that the motion says nothing and simply takes note of the situation. He said that what is needed is to take steps in implementation of the recommendations. He said that while the party will attend any other stakeholders meeting they had doubts about whether the government wants to call another stakeholders forum.
Meanwhile, PPP/C MP and presidential advisor on governance, Gail Teixeira speaking with reporters said that the opposition amendments were never tabled but were discussed. She said that on Wednesday they were told that the combined opposition had amendments but asserted that they had no authority to make add-ons to the clause that no consensus was reached on. She declared that the government took a principled position and could not do a disservice to the stakeholders who were at the February 20, 21 meetings.
Upon the resumption, PPP/C members Rohee and Donald Ramotar severely criticized the opposition parties for their actions. Rohee said that “in a rather flippant and disdainful manner” the parties were prepared to jettison 22 days of negotiations. He said that the document tabled does not belong to the House alone but the other stakeholders and there were doubts that they would go along with the amendments. He said that the invoking of previous accords that were signed but not implemented was being used as a “red herring”. He said that the walk-out was “most unfortunate” and not a healthy development for the country and declared that “there is a criminal enterprise out there. Political signals are being sent out to them”.
Meanwhile Ramotar said that the opposition parties’ action raises questions about whether their participation in the stakeholder forums was genuine. Hinds closing off the presentations expressed regret at the opposition parties to leave and said that the motion reflected what was agreed to and signed onto at the meeting at the Office of the President.
In a subsequent statement, the PNCR said the government also rejected any reference to equitable access to parliamentary parties to the state media, which was a serious concern raised by the Parliamentary Opposition Parties when they met President Jagdeo and was a matter agreed upon in the signed Communiqué signed by President Jagdeo and Corbin since May 6, 2003. The Government also rejected any reference to the enactment of Freedom of Information legislation and to the removal of state monopoly on radio, the PNCR said
It added: “The doubts of the PNCR and the other Opposition Parties are founded upon historical experience in which undertakings arrived at by the Government have been honoured in the breach. For example, there have been agreements that the joint services will conduct their operations professionally and within the confines of the law and with respect for constitutional rights of citizens. The recent actions of the security services clearly demonstrate a lack of willingness on the part of the Government to uphold the commitments to professionalism and respect for constitutional rights.
“Only yesterday, Wednesday, March 26th, in Parliament, the Government rejected three reasonable Motions calling respectively for an investigation into the operations of GPL, the establishment of a permanent Law Reform Commission and the setting up of an aggregate limit of $10M on the amount of debt the Government may forgive in any year without approval of the National Assembly.”
In its statement, the AFC said the party “feels that to proceed with this charade is to perpetuate the disregard and disrespect growing against the Parliament of Guyana among our supporters; but more significantly it will be to denigrate the expectation reposed by the Guyanese people in the Stakeholders’ agreement, the terms of which, if implemented will go a far way in allaying the security fears of the public”. (Gaulbert Sutherland)
