The Government of Guyana today released a document which it has presented to the international community in which it says that Guyana is “under threat” because of the policies and postures of the opposition.
In the conclusion to the lengthy document, it said that it is warning again, “as it did the OAS Permanent Council, friendly international and regional organizations that the developments in the National Assembly and the wider society in Guyana are subverting parliamentary democracy and posing a serious and real threat to political stability.
“The Guyana Government calls on your organization to monitor and to consider what statements and postures it may wish to make in support of the protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a
democratically elected government.”
The full document issued follows:
*Guyana’s parliamentary democracy being subverted: The Opposition’s
‘dictatorship of one’*
One year after the new parliamentary dispensation, the Government
Information Agency (GINA) is releasing this document which was circulated
to international and regional bodies.
*The Government of Guyana’s Briefing to international and regional bodies
on the post-November 28, 2011 general elections**.*
*Introduction:*
After the November 28, 2011, general and regional elections under the
proportional representation system, the Peoples’ Progressive Party/Civic
won the single largest bloc of votes and therefore in accordance with the
Guyana Constitution formed the government with 32 seats; the two opposition
parties, A Party for National Unity (A.P.N.U.) and the Alliance for Change
(A.F.C.) won 26 and 7 seats respectively. The two opposition parties,
therefore, have a combined one seat majority in the National Assembly. This
is the first time in Guyana’s history that such a situation has occurred in
the Legislature.
It should be noted that Guyana Constitution is based on a hybrid
Republican-Westminster parliamentary system headed by an Executive
President who also heads the Parliament but is not a sitting member of the
National Assembly. The Parliament is comprised of the President, the
Speaker, the Clerk and the National Assembly.
The National Assembly is made up of 65 Members of Parliament elected under
a mixed proportional representation electoral system with 25 seats coming
from the 10 Administrative Geographic Regions and 40 from National Top Up.
Members of Parliament are named by the Representatives of the Lists of the
political parties that have won seats in the National Assembly by way of
formal notification to the Guyana Elections Commission. This system is
clearly defined in the Constitution and in statutes.
The Prime Minister is the Leader of the House and Ministers of the
Government must be Members of Parliament. The President, as provided for in
the Constitution, may appoint an additional 4 technocratic non-voting
Ministers and 2 non- voting Parliamentary Secretaries to the National
Assembly.
The Leader of the Opposition is provided for in the Guyana Constitution and
in statute and is elected by the non-governmental Members of Parliament.
The Constitution explicitly defines and provides for the division of powers
between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
The 1999-2001 broad-based Constitutional Reform Commission and the
resulting constitutional reforms were unanimously agreed to by the
parliamentary political parties through an extensive inclusive consultative
process that included communities across the 10 Administrative Regions and
civil society. This was then followed by an intensive parliamentary reform
process (2002-2006) which created an expanded committee system and enhanced
oversight of all facets of government supported by revised Standing Orders
in both 2006 and 2011.
Most notable, and, in furtherance of the constitutional provisions, the
National Assembly in 2007 by a majority vote of the government and the
major opposition party passed an amendment to the Constitution which allows
the Representative of the List of a political party to recall their Member
of National Assembly on prescribed grounds for such removal. In the case of
the government side the President is the Representative of the List.
Since the convening of the 10th Parliament on January 12, 2012 by His
Excellency President Donald Ramotar, the Guyana Constitution, parliamentary
norms and conventions and the Standing Orders of the Guyana Parliament have
been under constant threat by Opposition action taken as a result of their
one seat majority.
On November 22, 2012 the Government and thereby the Parliament was
subjected to such violations of constitutionally provided human rights and
the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders that the government has come to the
conclusion that parliamentary democracy is being subverted.
The Government has taken note of the 2011 study of the Constitution Unit ,
The Institute for Government, the University College of London, on “Making
Minority Government Work” which outlined the basic powers that any
democratically elected government, including a minority government, have in
the Legislature:-
i) The government retains dominance of the parliamentary agenda based on
the main rule that the “government business shall have precedence at every
sitting “(Guyana Parliament 2011 Standing Orders 24 (2));
ii) Only government can propose additional expenditure and any amendments
to bills with financial implications should be ruled inadmissible; (Guyana
Parliament 2011 SO 25 and 53)
iii) Government has the sole right of initiative in relation to secondary
legislation, orders and regulations and these are made by Ministers; (as
prescribed by statute)
iv) Government can use its prerogative powers to create advisory and
regulatory bodies, change machinery of government and make public
appointments; (Guyana Constitution)
v) Control of the Budget will remain principally a matter for government;
(Guyana Constitution)
vi)Power of dissolution /calling for election remains principally a matter
for government; (Guyana Constitution)
vii) Control of public bodies and public appointments principally a matter
of government; (Guyana Constitution)
viii) Government has control of the political, parliamentary and
legislative agenda; (Guyana Constitution and SO 24)
vix) Whilst opposition parties can influence government policy, Parliament
cannot make policy or force the government to do anything against its will.
Parliamentary motions can only be advisory. (Parliamentary convention)
Most of these powers outlined above are being unraveled, or, compromised by
the “dictatorship of one” of the two opposition parties in the Guyana
National Assembly.
Hence the Government has decided to document these disturbing developments
for the attention of you and your organization.
* *
*Post 2011 elections developments in the National Assembly:*
The President having been sworn in on December 3, 2011 and recognising the
new dynamics in the National Assembly invited the leaders of the two
opposition parliamentary parties to meet him on December 6, 2011. This
gathering became known as the Inter-Parliamentary Parties Dialogue (IPPD)
which in its initial meetings focused on trying to reach consensus on the
election of the Speaker. Government’s efforts to reach agreement on the
Speaker continued up to and within hours of the first sitting on January
12, 2012 but were unsuccessful.
Therefore from the very outset, the Government was challenged; this has
continued unabated for the last 11 months of the 10th Parliament.
* *
*Speaker and Deputy Speaker*
The Speaker, Mr. Raphael Trotman (at the time Representative of the List
and the then Leader of the Alliance for Change, A.F.C., the smallest party
with 7 seats) and the Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Deborah Backer ( an Executive
Member of A Party for National Unity, A.P.N.U., with 26 seats) were elected
by majority from these two opposition parliamentary parties at the first
sitting on January 12, 2012.
The Government’s motion of its nominee to the Speaker was defeated. Most
interesting is that the government’s nominee for the Speaker was the former
Speaker of the previous (9th) Parliament, who both opposition parties had
been repeatedly loud in praise of his stewardship.
This break with normal traditional parliamentary convention in Guyana where
government would name the Speaker and the Opposition would have the Deputy
Speaker was the first indication that the opposition parties would use
their one seat majority to achieve their parliamentary ambitions.
It is particularly noteworthy that the APNU/AFC Opposition conspiracy on
the election of the Speaker has created an aberration where the Speakership
is held by the smallest party in the House, the Deputy-Speakership by the
second smallest party in the house, and the largest party in the House is
excluded from both of these offices. The Government is of the view that
this must be one of, if not, the only such situation in any Legislature in
the world.
* *
*President’s Address to the National Assembly*
The President addressed the National Assembly on February 10, 2012. The
President’s Address was debated at the March 15, 2012 sitting where the
APNU and AFC did not support the motion and abstained from voting. The
motion to adopt the President’s Address was passed with a vote of 32 for.
* *
*Composition of Parliamentary Committees*
At the February 10th sitting, the members of the Standing Committee of
Selection were nominated on the floor of the House by both government and
opposition parties. The two opposition parties by motion reduced the size
of the Committee from 10 members with the Speaker as chair to 9 with 4 for
the government, and, 5 (4 APNU and 1 AFC) for the opposition with the
Speaker as the Chair. This was voted on and adopted by majority vote of one.
Since then the accepted norms and practices of the Committee of Selection
have been under attack and its function grossly compromised.
At the first meeting of the Committee of Selection chaired by the Speaker
on February 24, 2012, the combined opposition parties used their majority
on the Committee to establish new rules on the composition of the
parliamentary committees.
The Parliamentary Opposition ruled based on what they called the “new
dispensation in the National Assembly” that the Opposition would have the
majority of seats on all committees and the number of seats on each
committee, unless otherwise specified, would be reduced from 10 to 9 seats.
They proposed a formula of 4-4-1 and voted by majority for 9 seats on all
committees with 4 for the PPP/C (with 49.3% of the electorate), 4 for the
A.P.N.U. ( with 40% of the electorate) and 1 for the A.F.C.( 10.3 % of the
electorate).
The Government had also made a proposal at the meeting for parity on the
committees based on the new situation in the National Assembly of 5 seats
for the government and 5 seats for the combined opposition, 4 for A.P.N.U.
and 1 for A.F.C.. The Government argued that its proposal was closer to the
electoral results than the combined Opposition’s proposal. However, this
was rejected. With that, by vote of a majority, the Government’s
representation on all committees which the Standing Orders provided for “no
less than 6 no more than 10 members” was now reduced to a minority.
In fact, the combined opposition parties now have disproportional
representation on the 9 member committees of 54 % which they neither
individually (40% APNU with 26 seats and 10% AFC with 7 seats) nor
collectively attained at the polls and the government has 40 % of the
representation on the committees which is below its 49.2% of the polls.
By way of correspondence to the Speaker, the Government asked that the
March 2, 2012 meeting to elect the chairs of the standing committees be
postponed pending the outcome of the discussions at the level of the
Inter-Parliamentary Party Dialogue (IPPD) between the President and the
leaders of the opposition parties.
The Government further documented its concerns to the Speaker on March 6,
2012. On March 7, 2012, the Committee of Selection continued to nominate
members to sit on the remaining committees.
On March 13, 2012 the Speaker proceeded to hold the first meeting of the
appointed committees to elect the chairpersons which other than those
chaired by the Speaker became controlled by the A.P.N.U., the major
opposition party.
The Speaker as the Chairperson accepted the Parliamentary Opposition’s
position of having the numerical majority on the executive of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Guyana Branch.
As per norm the Opposition chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee
was continued.
The Standing Orders, in consonance with the concept of inclusionary
democracy provided for in the Constitution, explicitly state that there
will be parity in the Parliamentary Management Committee chaired by the
Speaker. It goes so far as to state that there must be in attendance a
minimum of 2 members each from the Government and Opposition in order to
proceed with the business of a meeting.
The constitutionally created four (4) Parliamentary Standing Sectoral
Committees as provided for in the Guyana Constitution and described in the
Standing Orders have a 4:3 distribution of seats in favour of the governing
party and chairpersons that rotated annually between the government and
opposition. Each side has one non-voting alternate. These 4 sectoral
committees play a critical oversight role on the performance of government
in the economy, social services, natural resources and foreign services. In
the 9th Parliament these committees functioned and summoned the Prime
Minister, Ministers and state agencies before them as well as made site
visits to government projects and agencies.
At the March 30, 2012 sitting, two A.P.N.U. Members of Parliament tabled
motions to the National Assembly which sought to revise the relevant
Standing Orders to provide the opposition with a majority in the membership
of the Parliamentary Management Committee and the 4 Sectoral Committees.
These motions were sent to the Standing Orders Committee.
The Government approached the High Court for a legal interpretation of the
provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders with regard to the
composition of the parliamentary committees to reflect as far as possible
the “balance of parties in the National Assembly “.The Court did not rule
in the Government’s favour.
On October 18, 2012, the Government wrote the Speaker prior to the meeting
of the Committee of Selection scheduled for the same day to propose the
principle that government bills to be considered in Special Select
Committees should have committees based on parity and under the government
side’s chairmanship.
At that meeting of the Committee of Selection, both the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C.
members rejected the government’s proposal and stated that the issue of the
composition of committees had already been decided at 4:4:1. The 5 newly
appointed special select committees, including those working on government
bills, were then appointed and by majority opposition controlled. November
28, 2012 has been set for the election of the chairs of some of these
committees.
There are 22 committees constituted – 8 chaired by the Speaker; 5 chaired
by the A.P.N.U.; 5 special select committees pending the election of the
chairpersons. The 4 sectoral committees have not elected their chairpersons
pending the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee to the National
Assembly and its decision.
It is important to point out that although the Speaker and or the A.P.N.U.
now control the chairmanship of all the parliamentary committees, few are
functioning.
The Public Accounts Committee only commenced summoning government agencies
to answer with regard to the Auditor General’s 2010 Public Accounts Report
in October 2012. In the meantime the Auditor General’s 2011 Public Accounts
Report was tabled in the House.
The constitutionally provided Committee to Appoint Members to the Service
Commissions and the 4 Rights Commissions only held its first meeting on
November 21, 2012.
The Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by the Leader of the Opposition
has met twice.
*Setting the date of Sittings of the House*
The time honoured parliamentary practice and Standing Orders’ provisions
allow the Government to independently set the date for sittings. This has
been overturned.
The Opposition on March 15, 2012 voted down the Prime Minister when he set
a date for the next sitting and a motion tabled and seconded by the
A.P.N.U. MPs named a different date for the next sitting. Since then, dates
for sittings of the National Assembly now have to be negotiated between the
Chief Whips or receive their concurrence.
* *
*Government Business*
In the first and second session of the 10th Parliament, the Government has
brought 24 bills to date. Nine (9) were passed and assented; 1
Supplementary Financial Paper was defeated; An Appropriation Bill for the
2012 Budget was passed as amended with a GY $20 B cut and assented; the
second Supplementary Appropriation Bill was passed as amended and assented;
5 government bills have been sent to 2 Parliamentary Special Select
Committees, some since July 30, 2012, and awaiting the election of the
chairpersons; 5 government bills are waiting on the Order Paper, some since
October 22 2012, and cannot be heard due to the developments in the
National Assembly on November 8th and 22nd, 2012. Two have been deferred by
the government following further discussion with stakeholders.
*Financial Papers*
The Constitution provides for the Finance Minister to bring financial
papers for consideration of the House to approve and supplementary
expenditures to the annual authorized budgetary appropriation. These
approvals and or authorizations are usually granted particularly as the
expenditures in most cases would have already been committed.
As provided for by the Constitution, the Minister of Finance is allowed to
utilise monies from the Contingency Fund in certain prescribed
circumstances including between the period of dissolution of the Parliament
for elections and its reconvening and is required to bring these
Supplementary Financial Papers (SPs) as soon as the National Assembly is
reconstituted.
The Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, tabled 2 Supplementary Financial
Papers (SPs) on February 10, 2012. On February 16, 2012, during the debate
on these SPs the A.P.N.U and the A.F.C. withheld approval or negativized a
number of sub-heads on one of the papers, thus leaving a charge of GY $79 M
unauthorized. More interesting is that the Opposition parties did not
submit to the normal procedures required to bring amendments to these SPs.
Despite efforts by the Government in writing to Speaker and on the floor of
the House, the Speaker allowed these actions to proceed.
Normal parliamentary convention does not support leaving a charge on the
Contingency Fund. One SP was passed as amended. The second paper, was
postponed after a motion by 2 A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. Members to withdraw the
paper, was put in abeyance by the Speaker.
The Speaker declared at the end of the sitting, that he would allow the
Minister to return to the House with another SP for the items where
expenditure was not authorized.
At the March 15, 2012 sitting, the Speaker in response to the Government’s
protests about the treatment of the first SP not being in order by
parliamentary convention and norms, ruled that the treatment of the first
paper despite leaving a charge of the Contingency Funds was in order. The
second paper was passed by 31 for, 26 opposed and 7 declined to vote.
The Minister of Finance then returned to the National Assembly on June 14,
2012 to address the outstanding charge of $79 M by way of a Supplementary
Financial Paper and after much wrangling and procedural arguments, the
Speaker allowed the SP to be again considered and again not approved.
* *
*IPPD*
In the interim, the IPPD under the chairmanship of the President continued
to meet and decided to establish a number of sub-committees to address
issues of governance. These were sub-committees on Governance, Constitution
and Parliament, and economic issues and the Budget. In contrast to the
parliamentary committees, each party had equal representation. These
sub-committees met with little success and plenary meetings were harder to
organize. The Government has separately documented its efforts to convene
plenary meetings and follow up meetings of the sub-committees.
* *
*2012 Budget*
The 2012 Budget was read by the Minister of Finance, Hon. Dr. Ashni Singh,
on March 30, 2012. The general debate began on April 10, 2012.
As the general debate was drawing to an end and on the eve of the debate on
the Estimates, the
A.F.C. MP Ramjattan and the A.P.N.U. MP Carl Greenidge brought
motions on the night of April 17th, to cut the Budget Sub-Heads for the
employment of contracted workers in the Office of the President, the
Ministries of Education, Housing and Water, Health, Labour, Human Services
and Social Security. The following day, April 18, 500 public servants
including staff from the Parliament Office held peaceful pickets in front
of the Parliament Building against the proposed cuts by the opposition. These
motions were withdrawn at the April 18th sitting.
A question without notice to the Minister of Finance by an A.P.N.U. Member
of Parliament at the same April 17, 2012 sitting, sought to know whether
the Government would be prepared to meet with the A.P.N.U. with regard to
the 2012 Budget, the Minister replied that the Government would be willing
to meet once the Opposition made available in writing the list of issues it
wished to discuss.
The Government of Guyana (GoG) headed by the President with his delegation
and the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) and Leader of the A Partnership for
National Unity, A.P.N.U., Mr. David Granger, with his delegation held
meetings from April 18-24, 2012 to try to reach agreement on the 11 issues
raised by the LOP in order to reach agreement on 2012 Budget. The then
A.F.C. leader, Mr. Ramjattan, refused at first to be part of the talks and
eventually joined the meetings on April 23, 2012.
At the first meeting convened on April 18, 2012, the Government agreed to
the A.P.N.U.’s proposal for an increase of the monthly rates of the
universal non-contributory Old Age Pension. The Government’s caveat to the
agreement was that it would expect the A.P.N.U. to support the additional
charge of over GY$1 Billion on the Budget. On the said day, the Minister of
Finance announced the increase at the sitting of the National Assembly.
Agreement was reached on April 19, 2012 between the GoG and the A.P.N.U. to
a reduction in the subsidy for electricity supplied to Administrative
Region 10 and specifically to the township of Linden.
The Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, with the full concurrence of the
Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger and Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine of
the A.P.N.U., (who were shown a copy of the statement before it was read to
the National Assembly) announced the agreement at the sitting of April 19,
2012.
On the following day, April 20, 2012, leaders of the A.F.C., travelled to
Linden and with A.P.N.U. leaders from the Region opposed any reduction in
the subsidy for electricity. The Leader of the Opposition also travelled to
Linden and at a meeting there reneged on the agreement reached on April 19,
2012.* *
At the all day April 22, 2012 meeting between the two sides, progress
appeared to have been made and a draft press release was prepared to that
effect.
On the following day, April 23, 2012, A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs tabled
motions to cut the Budget by over GY $ 20 Billion. The draft press release
was not agreed to by the two opposition parties and was never released.
Talks between the two sides on the nights of April 23 and 24, 2012 failed
to reach agreement, and, in fact, reversed what progress was made with the
entrance of the A.F.C delegation. (Please find attached *Appendix 1* *Notes
on meetings between the GOG, APNU and AFC April 18-24, 2012). *
The Opposition motions to reduce the 2012 Budget were tabled and voted on
by majority at the April 25 and 26, 2012 sittings.
The Appropriation Bill for Budget 2012 was passed as amended with massive
cuts of GY $ 20.9 Billion on April 26th 2012. Most telling are those
government agencies which were reduced- the Office of the President, the
Guyana Elections Commission, the Guyana Power and Light, the Ministry of
Finance’s Low Carbon Development Strategy programme, the State Planning
Secretariat, the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU) and the Ethnic Relations
Commission, one of 4 constitutional rights commissions.
The Government, in the interim again approached the High Court for a ruling
on the reductions to the 2012 Budget by the opposition parliamentary
political parties. The High Court ruled in the government’s favour stating
that the Opposition-controlled National Assembly acted outside its
constitutional remit in imposing the cuts to the 2012 Budget.
In keeping with the court ruling on the budget cuts, on August 9th, the
Minister of Finance returned to the House requesting approval for
expenditures under supplementary provisions in keeping with the court
order. This attempt was partially successful but this time funding of the
original heads which were reduced on April 25, 2012 for the Office of the
President were reduced to 0.
On this note the recess of first session of the 10th Parliament commenced.
* *
*Opposition Motions*
In this period, the Opposition has brought several motions which have no
legislative effect but which they expect can be used by a majority vote to
change the Guyana Constitution and laws such as the President’s Pension and
Benefits, removal of Service Commissions, the courts, the Guyana Elections
Commission, as budget agencies etc..
A bill entitled The Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly Bill which
both the Attorney General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel have advised
the Speaker is unconstitutional was still allowed to be tabled and is
pending on the Order paper for its second reading.
The most important of these motions and the one which has led to the
Government’s conclusion that parliamentary democracy has been subverted
relates to a “non confidence” motion moved against the Minister of Home
Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. The genesis of this motion goes back to the
reneging of the LOP’s support for the reduction of the subsidy for
electricity supplied to Administrative Region 10 including the township of
Linden. The GoG with a reduced national budget was placed in an invidious
position-with the reduced subsidy for the Guyana Power Limited, the reduced
subsidy for electricity for the Linden township could no longer be avoided.
The GoG announced the introduction of new rates in Region 10 and Linden
which would be effective from July 1st 2012 and which would bring the
tariffs in the community to approximately 50% of what the rest of the
consumers on the grid were paying.
Following the July 18th Linden protest during which 3 persons were fatally
shot, the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) wrote to the Speaker on Saturday
July 20, 2012 to ask for an urgent special sitting to discuss the situation
in Linden and the shootings to death of 3 persons and injuries to several
persons. The Speaker advised that a sitting was scheduled for Wednesday
July 25th and he would allow the LOP to bring an Adjournment Motion on
Matters of Urgent Public Business.
This development was significant as it flew in the face of discussions
between the President and the two opposition parties on July 19th for the
establishment of a Commission on Inquiry into the fatal shootings of 3
protesters and injuries to several and loss of property due to arson, and,
the appointment of plenipotentiaries to draft the Terms of Reference of
this Commission.
The Government learnt that in the early hours of July 25, 2012 the LOP
advised the Speaker by email that he would instead be bringing a “no
confidence” motion for the removal of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr.
Clement Rohee, as a result of the killing of 3 persons on July 18th in
Linden.
The Speaker approved of the LOP’s request to dispense with the relevant
Standing Orders and allowed the “no confidence motion” to be debated
without notice on the same day that it was laid. The Hansard on July
25thdocuments the procedural debated which took place on the floor
regarding allowing a “no confidence motion” to be debated on the same day
that it was laid with no notice to the government or the Minister
concerned. The Speaker allowed the debate to commence and the Government
advised that all of its 34 MPs wished to speak. The debate on that motion
was not concluded on July 25 and continued during the July 30th sitting
concluding at 2:12 am on the morning of July 31, 2012. (Please find
attached *Appendix 11 **Hansard of the July 25th and July 30th 2012 sittings
*).
The GoG submitted amendments to the LOP’s motion on July 30 seeking that
any action against the Minister await the findings of the Commission of
Inquiry. These amendments were rejected by the opposition parties by a
majority vote. ( Please find attached *Appendix 111* *LOP’s motion as
adopted by majority vote and the proposed amendments by the Prime Minister)
*
The LOP then wrote the President and called on him to act in accordance
with this majority parliamentary resolution and remove the Minister of Home
Affairs. Being fully cognizant that the Guyana Constitution does not
provide for such powers in the National Assembly, the rejection of the
opposition parties’ call by the President was not unexpected.
The Attorney General approached the courts in August, 2012 on behalf of
Minister Rohee to declare the “no confidence “motion in violation of the
Guyana Constitution. The court is still to rule.
During the August 2nd sitting of the National Assembly, the Attorney
General announced the Terms of Reference of the Commission of Inquiry which
had been agreed to earlier that day between the Government and the A.P.N.U.
The A.P.N.U. by way of letter had communicated their approval. Regrettably,
on the floor of the National Assembly the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.
David Granger, dissociated himself from the joint agreement to announce the
Terms of Reference. The leader of the minor opposition party, the AFC, Mr.
Khemraj Ramjattan denied having been involved. As a result, further
discussions continued on the TORs from that date to August 22nd when
agreement was reached among all three parties.
On August 9, 2012, the Speaker announced that he would seek legal advice as
to whether the National Assembly had the power by way of a majority motion
to make the President remove a Minister.
In the recess period from August 10th to the first sitting on October 22,
2012, agreement was reached by the GoG and the two opposition parties with
regard to the TORs and the composition of the Linden Commission of Inquiry
as stated earlier on August 22, 2012. The Commission was sworn in by the
President under the Commission Act and commenced its work on September 24,
2012.
Noteworthy is that 3 of the 5 Commissioners are non-Guyanese from
neighbouring CARICOM countries who were proposed with the assistance of the
CARICOM Secretary General and approved by the Government and two opposition
parties.
The opposition parties stated publicly that they had proof that the
Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Clement Rohee gave orders to the Guyana Police
Force to shoot the protesters; they based their case on alleged telephone
communication between the Minister and the Commanding Officer on the ground
as well as videos they purported to possess to prove that the police shot
the protesters.
During the COI, the lawyers for the 3 killed and injured, several of them
being APNU M.P.s as well as the new leader of the A.F.C., Mr. Nigel Hughes,
called for phone records to be produced. When these were produced to the
COI, they revealed that the telephone communication between the Minister
and the Commanding Officer took place *after* the time of the shooting;
they were also permitted to produce videos but these did not show as they
had expected the Police shooting nor did CCTV evidence substantiate that
claim. The independent Forensic Expert and Pathologist hired by the A.F.C.
leader /lawyer proved that the bullets that killed the 3 protesters and
injured others were not from police issued weapons or ammunition. ( Please
find attached *Appendix 1V* *Government’s statement to the Linden
Commission of Inquiry on October 30, 2012). *
The Commission called the Minister before it in keeping with the TORs of
the COI; from the verbatim records it appears that the COI was unable to
link the Minister with the shootings. The Commission of Inquiry heard
evidence up to November 2, 2012 and will return in January 2013. The
Commission also requested an extension of the life of the Commission to
February 28, 2013 which was granted by the President.
On October 22, 2012, the first sitting after the conclusion of the recess,
witnessed the opposition parties shouting down the Minister of Home Affairs
when he rose to table the first reading of one of his bills. Ironically the
bill, entitled the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 2012, if passed would bring
Guyana in conformity with some of its international treaty obligations.
The LOP on floor stated that the House by resolution called for the removal
of the Minister as he had lost the confidence of the House, and, therefore
the Minister should not be allowed to speak, table any bills and or make
any request for monies for his sector.
At the November 8, 2012, the Speaker, having received private legal advice
from two leading law firms, made a public ruling that in keeping with the
Guyana Constitution the National Assembly could not remove a Minister nor
could it prevent the Minister as a Member of Parliament from speaking. He,
however, suggested that the opposition consider bringing a substantive
motion. The Opposition shouted down the Speaker and he was forced to
suspend the sitting. The Speaker then summoned the Government and
Opposition Chief Whips to his Chambers; the Opposition Chief Whip Ms Amna
Ally declared that their side would not allow the Minister to speak. On
reconvening a short while later, the Speaker again called on the Minister
to proceed with the 2nd reading of his bill. Again, grave disorder was
created in the House by the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. MPs; they refused to listen
to the Speaker and he adjourned the sitting in accordance with SO 47(9) to
November 22, 2012.( Please find attached *Appendix V **Speaker’s November
8, 2012 ruling) *
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger, following this sitting,
submitted a motion seconded by M.P. Ramjattan of the A.F.C. calling for the
House to “Prevent Honourable Clement Rohee, M.P., Minister of Home Affairs,
from speaking in the National Assembly”.
The Clerk of the National Assembly consulted several parliamentary experts
and advised the Speaker in writing that neither the Speaker nor the
National Assembly had the power to prevent the Minister from speaking as a
Member of Parliament. The Clerk also pointed out that the matter was sub
judice and additionally the motion was in violation of several
constitutional provisions. His arguments were supported by drawing from the
rules and practices of other democratic parliaments. ( Please find attached
*Appendix V1* *Clerk’s written advice to Speaker*).
On November 22, 2012, a few minutes before the sitting was to commence, the
Speaker instructed that the said motion be placed both on a Notice Paper
and on the Supplementary Order Paper for the sitting of the same day.
The November 22, 2012 sitting witnessed a complete subversion of accepted
parliamentary norms, practices and the Guyana Parliament’s Standing Orders.
The Minister of Home Affairs rose to speak on the second reading of his
bill and the A.P.N.U. M.P. Basil Williams rose to move the suspension of
the Standing Orders to allow Mr. Granger’s motion to be debated. The motion
was improperly and incompletely put and yet was allowed by the Speaker.
Like the “no confidence motion” of July 25th the government was presented
with the motion on the same afternoon and expected to debate it.
Most unusual was the interruption of and suspension of the Standing Orders
in the midst of Government Business in violation of the Standing Orders and
time honoured parliamentary conventions and norms. The A.P.N.U. M.P. forgot
to suspend that Standing Order regarding Government Business taking
precedence but was ably assisted by the Speaker who said that the Member
meant that he was suspending all the Standing Orders. Hours of procedural
arguments took place in the House led by the Government and the A.P.N.U.
MPs.
Despite the facts that the issue of the “no confidence” motion was before
the court and the motion interrupted the second reading of a Government
bill, in order to insert an Opposition motion by way of suspension of the
Standing Orders, the Speaker ruled that:-
(i) The LOP’s motion was “admissible” and “properly before the House” and
“matters raised in that motion are matters which should be referred to the
Committee of Privileges”;
(ii) The second reading of the Minister’s Firearms (Amendment) Bill would
not be allowed to be proceeded with pending a report of the Committee of
Privileges;
(iii)”While the matter resides with the Committee of Privileges, l
recognize the right of Mr. Rohee to address the House. Any bill that comes
or is initiated by him, l will not recognize”
iv) The LOP’s “motion is extant; it is valid; it is pending. It has been
referred to the Committee of Privileges. On report of that Committee, you
can debate the motion…”
(v) The Committee of Privileges would be convened shortly. (Please find
attached *Appendix V11* *Speaker’s November 22, 2012 ruling*)
The sitting was then adjourned for December 17, 2012.
The Speaker’s ruling shocked not only the Government but many members of
civil society and the public.
The Government insisted and continues to insist that no prima facie case
had been made that the Minister and a Member of Parliament has committed
neither any breach of privilege nor any offense against the dignity of the
Parliament. Furthermore, the usurpation of the Government Business on the
Order paper was unheard of and unprecedented.
Most disturbing was that the Speaker by his ruling to prevent an M.P. from
speaking overturned his own ruling on November 8, 2012 and allowed the
opposition parties to succeed with their publicly declared agenda of
“gagging” the Minister as a Member of Parliament.
It is significant to note that prior to this sitting, the Leader of the
Opposition had publicly declared that the A.P.N.U. were mulling over how to
“get rid of Rohee”. This statement triggered a letter to the Speaker from
the Government cautioning about such statements and the Minister’s safety.
The Speaker made light of this in his response saying that the LOP was an
honourable man and he was sure no harm to the Minister’s person was meant.
The Attorney General immediately approached the High Court on November 27,
2012 to seek a ruling and a declaration that the decision and ruling of the
Speaker that the motion, presented by LOP David Granger to the National
Assembly on November 22, 2012 prohibiting Minister Rohee from speaking and
not recognizing him as a Minister of Home Affairs, was unlawful and
unconstitutional. He is also seeking a ruling from the court that the
Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine any
issue remitted to it by virtue of the said ruling of the Speaker. The court
is being asked to set aside, vacate, quash or rescind the decision and or
ruling of the Speaker that the motion presented by LOP Granger prohibiting
Minister Rohee from speaking is unlawful and unconstitutional as an elected
member of the National Assembly but also an appointed Minister of the
Government pursuant to the Constitution and laws of Guyana.
* *
*Events beyond the National Assembly.*
In addition to the developments outlined in this document, the Government
has been challenged with politically-driven disturbances organized and lead
by extreme and fringe elements of the A.P.N.U. and the A.F.C. and other
bodies to create political instability and reverse the gains that Guyana
has made.
* *
*Government of Guyana talks with the opposition parliamentary parties *
*Linden Disturbances (July 18- August 22, 2012)*
Please refer to the detailed Government’s submission to the Linden
Commission of Inquiry October 30, 2012 attached as *Appendix 1V *which
chronicles the events and extensive efforts by the Government with the
opposition parties and the Region 10 Chairman and other leaders to restore
normalcy.
The Government wishes to emphasis that the prolonged period of 36 days of
protest and occupation of township which severed the country into two would
not have been possible without the complicity of the leaders of the two
opposition parties to not tone down the rhetoric and call off the protests
as well as the advocacy and misinformation spread by certain media and
social networking sites, all linked to the opposition parties or known
advocates of these political parties.
Following the August 22, 2012 signed agreement between the Government, at a
public meeting on August 24, 2012 which was addressed by A.P.N.U. and
A.F.C. leaders in Linden, the following was stated:-
Reverend Morian, A.P.N.U. M.P., disclosed that the struggle continued and
encouraged persons to stay mobilized for instructions from the Chairman’s
office. He went on to say that once the “government refused to release
monies for development purposes in the Region the protest will continue”.
Mr. Solomon, Regional Chairman and A.P.N.U. member, stated that “the
struggle was not over until implementations were seen and residents must be
prepared to take to the streets in their thousands within two weeks if the
government failed to commence implementing the agreements. He disclosed
that he had spoken with some top brass military commanders who mentioned
that it would have been the first time that the military was so extended
within a community …from his intelligence over 400 military officers were
deployed to Linden… he posited that *Lindeners would now be better prepared
to deal with the Joint Services should the need occur.”*
It is a moot point that the misinformation presented to the public
following the signing of the agreement by Mr. Solomon was debunked by the
Joint Services own statement to the COI.
At a recent public meeting in the month of November in Linden addressed by
the LOP and members of A.P.N.U., exhortations were made for the community
to be prepared for the possibility of “pepperpot protests (ppp) in December
and in to the new year”.
* *
*Agricola*
On the evening of October 8, 2012, the A.F.C. leadership at a press
conference issued an ultimatum to the President to remove the Minister of
Home Affairs within 48 hours.
On October 11th, 2012, on the East Bank Highway in the vicinity of Agricola
village, protesters, some imported from outside the community, blocked the
main thoroughfare into and out of the capital city, Georgetown, with
connections to two other regions at rush hour. Vehicles and debris were
used to block the highway on all 4 lanes and fires were set. Thousands of
commuters including school children were trapped in a small area with no
way to turn. Citizens were attacked and robbed and hundreds of vehicles
were unable to move for over 7 hours. Thousands of citizens, including
school children, who lived across the Demerara River walked back to
Georgetown to try to reach the boats at the Ferry stelling and were also
robbed. The Police were physically assaulted and abused by the protesters.
The A.F.C. was the key instigator of this disturbance and when exposed both
the LOP, the A.P.N.U. and A.F.C. blamed the Police and the Minister of Home
Affairs.
Again on October 15th and 16th, at rush hour, the protesters attempted to
block the highway again and succeeded in blocking 2 of the 4 lanes. This
resulted in the backing up of traffic where some vehicles were attacked and
damaged by protesters. The Police again were abused but situation was
finally brought under control.
The public have been angered by this extremist behavior and have condemned
such action.
The Linden disturbances and the Agricola protests are disturbing
indications of the level of extremism and irresponsible and reckless
leadership that is taking over the political environment in Guyana.
* *
*Role of the Social Media*
Another most ominous development has arisen in this period whereby Guyanese
citizens are being targeted for their political persuasion and their
ethnicity. Incitement to violence against Guyanese of Indian descent (the
largest ethnic minority) was being promoted on social media such as *Facebook
*and *Twitter.*
Elements of the media supportive of the opposition parties were also
involved in the incitement of racial hostility and the spread of
misinformation. For instance, on one of the influential online media
outlet *Demerara Waves*, a blog posting calling for the mass murder of
Guyanese citizens of Indian descent was not blocked or removed.* ** *
An internet radio owned by Mark Benschop, a man who was charged for treason
for the assault on the Office of the President in 2002 and who was
subsequently pardoned by the President in 2009, also posted race hate and
misinformation.
Both online media outlets are responsible for the violence and burnings
which erupted in Linden in the early hours of August 10 when they
misinformed Lindeners that the Joint Services were in Linden and instructed
by the President “to shoot to kill.”
A list of supporters with their photographs of the governing party from the
Linden area was circulated online in order to facilitate the targeting of
these persons during the Linden protests. Most were forced to go into
hiding. The Headquarters of the PPP in Linden was attacked and partially
burnt and properties of party members were robbed. One of the female
supporters found that her photograph, address, telephone number and her
young child were posted on *Facebook* and labeled a PPP informant.
Even at this time of writing, the blog sites and websites of known
opposition personalities such as *OneVoicecanWin* and *Brutalfacts** *continue
to try to fuel and create more “Lindens” and “openly call for the
government to be brought to its knees.”
Fanning the flames of ethnic insecurities and promoting racial hostility
and racial hatred and conflict are particularly reprehensible in a
multi-ethnic society such as Guyana which has made steady progress over the
years in overcoming the bitter legacy of racial antagonism which was sown
in earlier times.
* *
*The internationalization of developments in Guyana*
The July 18 killing of 3 protesters was brought to the attention of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) which made a public
release on August 3rd, the GoG publicly responded on August 8th to the
IACHR.
Due to the gravity of these developments, the Government requested and was
permitted to brief the OAS Permanent Council on August 23, 2012 and
indicated to that body that it “is deeply concerned about this new
political environment and the behavior of the official parliamentary
parties and fringe elements following the November 28 2011 elections, and
is thereby warning that the situation in Guyana is precarious and one that
warrants close attention by our friends in the OAS.”(Please find
attached *Appendix
V111 **Government’s statement to the Permanent Council of the Organization
of American States on August 23, 2012)*
* *
*Conclusion*
These developments in the Guyana National Assembly over the last 11 months
are at their least disturbing and worrying, however, they become more
sinister when taken holistically with the consistent undermining and
subversion of parliamentary democracy based on “the dictatorship of one”
and repeated declarations of the “new dispensation” by the two opposition
parties that their supporters are the majority and they must have their day.
Examined together with the Linden disturbances (July 18-August 22, 2012),
the Agricola protests ( October 11, 15 and 16, 2012), and continuous
attempts to have similar such road blockages in other areas (which in
contrast have had little success thus far), threats of more protests, the
targeting of ethnic groups and threats against individuals in Government
and anyone who publicly defends the Government in the social media, the
Government of Guyana by way of this document is convinced that Guyana is
under threat.
It is therefore again warning, as it did the OAS Permanent Council,
friendly international and regional organizations that the developments in
the National Assembly and the wider society in Guyana are subverting
parliamentary democracy and posing a serious and real threat to political
stability.
The Guyana Government calls on your organization to monitor and to consider
what statements and postures it may wish to make in support of the
protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a
democratically elected government.
