The establishment of a parliamentary committee with oversight over national security remains in limbo, with the political parties yet to reach agreement on the enabling mechanism.
The membership and scope of the committee are also points of contention among the governing PPP/C and the opposition PNCR-1G and the AFC.
After eight months, the proposed committee and other agreements reached by the national stakeholders are yet to be fully implemented. The proposed standing sectoral committee was one of the key agreements reached by national stakeholders during special security consultations held in March this year, following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres in which 23 people died. It is also listed as a priority in the Security Sector Reform Action Plan, in which the British government has imposed parliamentary oversight as a condition of its assistance to Guyana.
The stakeholders, drawn from government, parliamentary political parties and civil society, also agreed to expedite the appointment of six outstanding constitutional commissions within a ninety-day timeframe; to convene and activate the Constitution-al Reform Committee, to examine outstanding issues and potential areas for reform; to ensure meaningful and effective participation of civil society in the parliamentary processes; and to explore an agreed mechanism for the continuation of the National Stakeholders’ Forum.
The government’s proposals for the national security oversight committee are contained in a draft bill that Prime Minister Samuel Hinds presented to the Parliamen-tary Management Committee. In June, Hinds wrote the Chairman of the Management Committee, Ralph Ramkarran, and invited discussion by the political parties on a proposed motion and the draft bill to set up the committee. The government has proposed that a new Article 119D be inserted into the constitution to cater for the new committee, but the opposition parties have been advocating that an amendment be introduced to broaden the legislation that currently provides for standing sectoral committees. The main opposition PNCR has criticised the government for failing to set up the committee in a timely manner.
AFC Leader Raphael Trotman told Stabroek News that he was disappointed that the committee has not been established and he was severely critical of the government for failing to accelerate its implementation at all levels. Trotman said the AFC, like other stakeholders, went into the discussions with guarded optimism, hoping that national concern would override partisanship. While he was buoyed by the agreements that emerged, he said the government as the driver of the process has not acted expeditiously. However, at the same time, he said it was not unusual given the government’s track record in relation to security reform.
The government, he contended, is resistant to all reforms that do not emanate from the Office of the President or Cabinet.
Trotman said the government’s procrastination is also the result of its overemphasis on the capture and killing of Rondell ‘Fineman’ Rawlins and members of his gang. “All other components were put on the backburner,” he said.
Trotman said while the party can continue to agitate for action, ultimately it is the government that will have to act. Nevertheless, he hoped that civil society and other stakeholders would get involved to help move the process forward.
Stabroek News repeatedly contacted Presidential advisor on governance Gail Teixeira at the Office of the President for a comment on the status of implementation of the agreements but she did not return our calls.
Meanwhile, in a report that was given to the Parliamentary Management Committee on the proposals for the committee, Trotman said the Terms of Reference are vaguely spelt out, warning that it could lead to much misinterpretation of the scope and function of this committee. He argued that an oversight committee will be severely hampered in its work, if chaired only and always by a government member. As a result, he recommended that the sectoral committee formula, which allows for rotation of the chairmanship, be used. Similarly, he noted that limiting the proposed membership to five is too restricted, suggesting instead that there be at least seven members or a number consistent with the sectoral committee formulation.
Trotman proposed that the legislation to create the committee be encapsulated in a constitutional amendment to the article which was used to constitute the current Standing Sectoral Committees.
Trotman explained much work will have to be done to bring the committee to a state of readiness and efficiency. He pointed out that the involvement of the legislature in overseeing the security sector in Guyana has been traditionally very limited, restricted primarily to the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the house’s annual consideration of budgetary estimates.
Additionally, Trotman observed that the call for the committee is not new and was made a decade ago by the Guyana Defence Force in its submission to the Constitution Reform Commission. Subsequently, the call was repeated by a number of bodies, including the 2001 Border and National Security Committee Report; the 2002 Caricom Task Force on Crime and Security Report; the 2004 Disciplined Forces Commission Report; and the 2007 Security Sector Reform Action Plan.
But according to Trotman, none of the bodies sought to define the oversight role that they recommended, although the army’s submission to the Constitution Reform Commission did recommend a Standing Committee to focus on issues such as the use of the military in internal civilian operations and the deployment of troops overseas. Based on best practices in other jurisdictions, he said it is accepted that to ensure a proper oversight function, the role of the Parliament should be to review the four phases of the security sector operation, being the development of policy; decision-making; implementation; and evaluation.
Meanwhile, to date two motions were passed in parliament to pave the way for the establishment of the Rights of the Child Commission and the Women and Gender Equality Commission. But nominees have yet to be named. Additionally, there is still disagreement over the organisations to be consulted for nominees to the other outstanding commissions, the Indigenous People’s Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the National Procurement Commission as well as no agreement on the reconstitution of the Ethnic Relations Commission.
Meanwhile, the sub-committee responsible for the reactivation of the Constitutional Reform Committee has met and agreed on broad guidelines. There has been no progress on the realisation of the other two agreements.
