Constitution amendment being mulled for national security committee

The PNCR-1G is recommending a simple amendment to the country’s constitution to establish a new parliamentary sectoral committee on national security with ministerial representation.

This recommendation is in keeping with one of several decisions taken on March 12, 2008 by stakeholders meeting at the Office of the President in the aftermath of two massacres in Lusignan and Bartica.

When asked for an update recently on the party’s position, PNCR Leader Robert Corbin said he has responded by way of a letter, which he made available to the Stabroek News, to a proposal put forward by Prime Minister Samuel  Hinds on behalf of the government regarding the establishment of the sectoral committee on national security.

In the letter dated July 14, 2008 and dispatched on the same date Corbin said the PNCR saw no need to create a new article as recommended by the government.

According to Corbin the government has recommended the creation of a new article, ‘Article 119D’ to cover the establishment of the sectoral committee on national security.

Article 119B covers four parliamentary sectoral committees – natural resources, economic services, foreign relations and social services – and according to Corbin a simple amendment would make provision for the establishment of a fifth category which would include ‘national security.’

Apart from recommending the simple amendment, Corbin said that the motion which brought into being the other sectoral committees, Resolution No. 19, would have to be tabled and adopted. “The amendment would simply propose the deletion of the word “and” in the third line of the first whereas clause and the addition of the words, “and (v) national security,” he said.

In addition, there would have to be a further amendment to add immediately after the resolved clause numbered ‘1’, the following: “1. A. The Sectoral Committee for national security shall have among its seven members a Minister to be identified by the government.” This, he said, would concur with the decision of the stakeholders to have ministerial representation on the committee.

Corbin said the government recommended five members to serve on the committee but the PNCR feels that seven should be the number in keeping with the representatives of the other sectoral committees.

His letter to the Prime Minister was in response to one copied to the PNCR Leader dated June 4, 2008, and addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly, inviting discussion by parliamentary parties on a proposed motion and a draft constitutional amendment to give effect to the establishment of the committee in keeping with the decisions of the recent national stakeholder consultation.

Corbin said, “We believe that such a Sectoral Committee should have already been constituted within the three–month period agreed and look forward to this being achieved before the forthcoming recess of the National Assembly. We stand ready to work speedily to achieve that result.”

Stabroek News made several efforts to contact the Prime Minister but was unable to do so. The establishment of the committee was one of several commitments the government had undertaken with stakeholders as a matter of urgency and within a matter of 90 days. Another undertaking was to expedite the appointment of the six Constitutional Rights Commissions within 90 days.

To date two motions were passed in parliament paving the way for the establishment of the Rights of the Child Commission and the Women and Gender Equality Commission.

The other outstanding commissions are the Indi-genous People’s Commission, the reconstitution of the Ethnic Relations Commission, and the establishment of the Human Rights Commission. Also outstanding is the establishment of a National Procurement Commission.

On the convening and activation of the Parliamentary Constitutional Reform Committee to address issues before it and to examine further areas for constitutional reform, Corbin said that the sub-committee with responsibility for this task met twice and agreed on broad guidelines.

The chairman of the sub-committee is Attorney General Doodnauth Singh. The other members are PPP/C MPs Bibi Shadick, Moses Nagamootoo, Dr Leslie Ramsammy and Anil Nandlall. The PNCR-1G representatives are Corbin, Winston Murray and Basil Williams, while the AFC representative is Raphael Trotman.

Asked if there was progress in the other areas agreed to, which included ensuring the meaningful and effective participation of civil society in the parliamentary process and exploring an agreed mechanism for the continuation of the National Stakeholders’ Forum, Corbin said the follow-up action is “a joke”.

He charged that the whole intent of the national stakeholders’ consultation had been abused by President Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP/C administration. The government had a glorious opportunity during the last motion on the global impact of prices on Guyana to consult widely, he said, contending that he wrote the Prime Minister suggesting that the subject was an ideal one for broader consultation instead of debating a controversial motion.

Disregarding his suggestion, Corbin said that Hinds said the government held their own consultation. “God in heaven knows how they did it,” he said.

However, Corbin said that Jagdeo was now using the word “consultation” conveniently to explain his non-signing of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union. “I am not commenting whether it is meritorious or not but I am making the point that he is using consultation as an excuse why he couldn’t sign, that he needs to consult the people of Guyana. How he’s going to do it, I don’t know.”

He stated that Jagdeo uses consultation conveniently noting that in the case of making the decision to bring Carifesta to Guyana out of its schedule he did not see it right to consult anyone. “Now he is in a difficult spot he uses consultation as a convenience and as such all this talk about consultation with the stakeholders to me is political convenience on the part of the Jagdeo administration… I have no problem with the President indulging in consultation but he has not done so in the case of Carifesta or the cost-of-living. My question is why doesn’t he do this all the time? Is it yet another sham?” (Miranda La Rose)