The National Assembly last evening passed a motion giving the go-ahead for the long-awaited Standing Committee on Oversight of the Security Sector to be constituted and become operational.
In the process of the motion being adopted, the government rejected proposed amendments by PNCR-1G Shadow Home Affairs Minister Deborah Backer to widen the ambit of the committee and to have its chairmanship rotate between the government and the opposition. However, a section of the motion was amended by the government side after it was pointed out that it contradicted one of the Parliamentary Standing Orders.
The motion was piloted by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and came 14 months after the House passed a constitutional amendment to establish the oversight committee in keeping with an agreement made in March 2008 by national stakeholders after consultations on security following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres.
The committee has been tasked with responsibility for the policies and administration of the disciplined forces. The motion basically outlines the terms of reference for the committee.
According to it, the Standing Committee shall consist of not less than six members and no more than ten members, while the representation on this committee will be proportional to the seats held by the political parties in the House. All members of the committee will be required to take an oath of secrecy. The motion also stipulates that the committee “in the discharge of [its] functions shall examine the policies and administration of the entities in the security sector based on the gazetted ministerial responsibilities for entities in the security sector under the purview of the standing committee,” and shall have the authority to perform several tasks. These include: defining the areas of government policy and administration for its scrutiny, assessing the performance of the disciplined forces vis-a-vis established targets/programmes, requesting the provision of oral and written information about any specific area of policy and administration of entities in the security sector unless this would pose a threat to national security and public safety.
Additionally, the motion stipulates that the committee’s authority will not include an examination of ongoing operational matters of the disciplined forces.
Backer, while speaking on the bill, said the PNCR-1G was relieved that the committee was finally about to be established. However, she noted that it had taken the government 14 months to return to the National Assembly to present the terms of reference for the committee’s establishment when it was the PNCR-1G’s opinion that this could have been done within a few days. Last year January, the PNCR-1G sought a deferral of the passage of the bill which amended the constitution, in order for more consideration of the framework of the legislation, but government speakers had argued that there had been enough time already for deliberation.
Outlining the basis for her proposed amendments, the shadow home affairs minister said the committee’s chairmanship should rotate between representatives of the government and the opposition to ensure more effective scrutiny. She argued that if a government minister were to head the committee, there could easily be a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, she said the ambit of the committee should be extended to increase its effectiveness. Backer noted that the narcotics trade had important implications for the country’s security sector, but according to the motion the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) would not come under the oversight of the committee.
Backer also called for the membership of the committee to be set at ten persons. She argued that this would permit for a wider representation from all the parties represented in the House.
AFC Leader Raphael Trotman indicated his party’s support for the motion and noted that discussions on this committee had been ongoing for over a decade. He said now it was time to put into action what had been discussed rather than merely talking. While expressing concerns about the possibility of a minister of government heading the committee, Trotman said these objections were not so fundamental that it would not support the committee.
Describing the bill as “better late than never”, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee called on the opposition parties to demonstrate trust and good faith as these relate to the working of the parliamentary committees.
Responding to Backer’s concerns about the committee being barred from examining ongoing operations of the disciplined forces, Rohee said that the alternative was “treading on dangerous ground”. According to him, it would be dangerous to intrude in such operational matters when the committee members would have no training in such. He argued that it would be best if the committee dealt with policy and generic issues.
Regarding the chairmanship of the committee, Rohee said that during the stakeholders meeting, it had been decided that the committee would be headed by a government minister.
PPP/C Anil Nandlall also rebuffed Backer’s calls for the chairmanship of the committee to be rotated and argued that it was necessary for a government official to head this committee at all times. He contended that the country’s Constitution places the issue of national security in the hands of the executive arm of the government.
Meanwhile, Nandlall argued that the committee sends a strong message to members of the joint services that the opposition and the executive arm of the government are working together to address the key issue of security in Guyana.
Before, the motion was passed, a section which proposed that its chairman would decide on the venue for the meetings, was amended, after Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran noted that it contradicted one of the Parliamentary Standing Orders. Backer had called for this to be changed and argued that it could be abused by the chairman. However, Rohee, Nandlall and Hinds rejected suggestions that there was some sinister move behind this provision.
