The recently defeated anti-money laundering amendments can be brought back before the National Assembly through agreement by government and opposition parliamentarians, says House Speaker Raphael Trotman.
The general perception concerning the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) (Amendment) Bill is that it is dead, after APNU and the AFC prevented the motion for the bill’s third reading by voting against it, with 33 votes over the PPP/C’s 28.
As a result, Guyana will appear before a Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) plenary, which starts next Tuesday, and it is expected that the country’s representatives will report that the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill has not been passed despite government’s efforts. Such a report, Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh has said, will most definitely bring negative implications to bear upon Guyana-based persons and businesses interested in carrying out financial transactions with the outside world.
However, despite the importance of last Thursday’s sitting, where the bill was considered, the government side did not turn out in full numbers. The absence of two members—Education Minister Priya Manickchand who requested leave, and Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, who was hospitalised–were accounted for, but there were still three members not accounted for.
This could have signalled that despite their rhetoric on the bill’s importance, government members were not optimistic that it would have been passed, considering the continued opposition voiced by both APNU and the AFC. Although unlikely, it could have also meant that the government was confident enough that the opposition, swayed by various sections of civic society who spoke on the urgency of passing the bill, would abandon their opposition and support the bill.
Whatever their hopes, by the end of the sitting the third reading of the bill was blocked, seemingly killing it. But yesterday Trotman said that a more appropriate description for the bill’s current status was “comatose.”
This is so, he explained, because although it was defeated, the PPP/C, APNU and the AFC can come to an understanding to have the bill re-engage the National Assembly, as was done with the bill and motion related to the Amaila Falls Hydropower project earlier this year.
During the July 18 National Assembly sitting, APNU and the AFC voted down the Hydro Electric Power (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the motion on raising the limit on guarantees given under the Guarantee of Loans (Public Corporations and Companies) Act. However, at a subsequent sitting, the Standing Orders (SOs) of the National Assembly were suspended and both measures were brought back and subsequently passed.
Similar steps can be taken in this case, Trotman told Stabroek News, since the House has the power to set its own rules concerning its procedures.
Silent
According to SO 69, “Once the second reading of any Bill has been agreed to or negatived, no question shall be proposed during the same Session for the second reading of any other Bill containing substantially the same provision.”
An expert on parliamentary procedure told Stabroek News yesterday that this is the only SO which comes close to addressing the prevailing question about the future of the anti-money laundering amendment bill. He pointed out that SO 69 speaks about second readings, and explained that the bill was on its third reading. “The SOs are silent on this particular matter but my interpretation is that bills on their third reading can be brought back,” the expert said.
But this initiative can only be initiated by the political parties themselves, Trotman explained.
Stabroek News was unable to elicit a comment from Finance Minister Singh on this matter.
Attempts were also made to contact Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall and Government Chief Whip Gail Teixeira but neither of them could be reached.
When contacted yesterday, AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan said that he acknowledges the AML/CFT (Amendment) Bill’s importance and would thus support an agreement to take it back to the National Assembly. He said, however, that his party maintains the stance that it will not vote for the legislation to be passed unless steps are taken towards making the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) a reality.
If brought back, he said, the bill should be re-committed to a Special Select Committee for further consideration, during which time the government can take the steps needed to operationalise the PPC. “The PPP must nominate its members to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and the general five names agreed upon for the PPC must be brought before the National Assembly for approval,” he said.
He added that a Supplementary Appropriation bill also needs to be brought to the National Assembly to take care of the financial requirements of the PPC so that the body can start its operations immediately.
Ramjattan is convinced that these steps can be taken within two weeks, and said that if government was to do this, it might bring a favourable response from the AFC in relation to passing the legislation.
The government, however, has argued that its cooperation on finalising the PPC will depend on whether cabinet is allowed to retain its “No Objection” to contracts. But, Ramjattan says that such a request is “total nonsense” and added that the AFC will “never support that [particular] amendment.”
Opposition Leader David Granger also expressed APNU’s willingness to cooperate with its counterparts to bring the bill back before the National Assembly, but he said that it would need to be recommitted to the Select Committee level for further considerations.
There are several memoranda, he told Stabroek News, that still need to be examined, in addition to all the other work that has to be done. Such considerations, he reiterated, is important if Guyana is to have sound, effective, anti-money laundering legislation.
