Dear Editor,
I noticed a report in the Sunday Stabroek (‘Nine new laws in limbo as presidential assent delayed,’ 14.9.08) attributed to Mr Raphael Trotman, reference the apparent non-assention of certain bills by the President, a number of which he was reported as referring to by name.
Regrettably the impression was given to the public that these were long overdue and that the President was making a “mockery” of the National Assembly and this was also an “insult” to the Guyanese public. He was also quoted as saying that the President has 21 days within which he must assent to a bill or return it to the House.
I want to bring a few of my observations of the article and its contents to Mr Trotman’s attention:
Firstly, Article 170 of the constitution advises that (2) when a bill is presented to the President for assent he shall signify whether he will assent or withhold assent; (3) when the latter he will return the Bill to the Speaker within 21 days of the date when it was presented to him for assent with a message stating the reasons why he has withheld his assent. (4) and (5) advises on what is done if section (3) occurs.
There is no provision I can find in the constitution which states explicitly the time period for the President to assent. He merely has to signify whether he assents or not to the bill being presented to him.
The Standing Orders also are not explicit. I wish to draw Mr Trotman’s attention to S 65 and 67 which provide for the Clerk and Speaker to make corrections to a bill once passed and then present it to the President in accordance with articles 164 and 170 of the constitution.
A bill once passed does not go to the President immediately; it is vetted by the CNA/Speaker and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to ensure typo mistakes/errors in numbering, etc, are corrected, amendments inserted and any concomitant changes made.
It is only when this process is completed that a bill is presented to the President for his assent.
Afterwards, once the bill has been assented to, it is then gazetted and a copy returned to the Clerk of the National Assembly.
The bills which Mr Trotman is quoted as referring to were passed in the National Assembly on July 24, 25 and 31.
The Supplementary Appropriation (No.1 for 2008) Act 2008 was passed on July 3, 2008 in the House and assented to August 29, 2008.
The Fiscal Enactment (Amendment) Act (Act 13 of 2008) 2008 was passed on July 31, 2008 in the House and assented to August 29 2008.
The Tax Amendment Act 2008 (Act No.9 of 2008) was passed on July 24, 2008 in the House and assented to on August 29, 2008.
The Prevention of Crimes Act (Act No.11 of 2008) was passed on July 25, 2008 in the House and assented to on August 29, 2008.
The Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Amendment Bill 2008 No.17 (playing music on the minibuses) passed the House on August 7, 2008.
First of all to cast aspersions when no basis exists is extremely interesting, especially as it is untrue to describe the bills Mr Trotman referred to as being “long overdue.” They were all recently passed in the House in the the latter part of July, and even on the last sitting of the House on August 7 before the recess. Not one of them is an old bill sitting there with the President not assenting to it! Maybe if Mr Trotman had done more homework to ascertain the status of some of the bills his views may have been better informed.
I repeat that there is also no definite time within which the President must assent; the constitution guides on this but is not definitive.
Mr Trotman referred to the lapsed bills of the Eighth Parliament, some of which were retabled in 2007. Clearly in the Eighth Parliament a number of bills lapsed, but not all lapsed because they were not assented to; some were not assented to, others were read a first time and lapsed as Parliament was dissolved to allow for elections, others were the subject of litigation and were deferred and subsequently lapsed. There are no bills which have been passed in the first and second sessions of the Ninth Parliament that have lapsed.
Between October 2006 and August 2007, 22 bills were passed, and all were assented to by the President.
Mr Trotman also gave the impression that the bills referred to were rushed through the National Assembly; may I remind him that several were deferred to give the opposition more time, eg, those originally tabled for July31.
The last paragraph of the article, quoting I believe Sir Michael Davies, is also of interest to me as it seems to take precedence over the Constitution of Guyana in the writer’s opinion. It calls for the bills to be immediately sent to the President, which is impossible based on the verification process, etc, which must be done beforehand and no such requirement exists.
May I add that this intermediary stage is practised in all Commonwealth Parliaments.
Forgive me if I add that this appears to be ‘a storm in a teacup.’
Yours faithfully,
Gail Teixeira, MP
Editor’s note
Sir Michael Davies’s report does not say that bills should be sent immediately to the President, and neither did we quote him as saying so. It is clear that what is meant is that the President should give a decision on the bill immediately once he receives it.
