Dear Editor,
I read with some amusement, to a letter published in the Stabroek News of February 4, captioned ‘Attorney General has no role in bills awaiting assent’ written by Christopher Ram. At first glance, my instinctive reaction was to ignore the letter and allow its author to revel in his own bewilderment. But then again, I revere my duty to the public, to ensure that information which is disseminated through public media remain unpolluted and factual. It is purely this sentiment which has inspired a reply.
The author contends that it is “ludicrous” to label a bill which has emanated from the opposition an “Opposition Bill” simply because it is passed by the National Assembly.
Anyone who has but a mere fleeting acquaintance with parliamentary practice and procedure would know that Bills carry certain descriptive labels if merely to explain their origin. For example, Bills emanating from the government dealing with public business enjoy the label ‘Government Bills’; other bills, similarly, carry the nomenclature of either ‘Opposition Bills’ or ‘Private bills,’ depending upon their nature and content. These descriptive labels are widely used in parliamentary Standing Orders the world over, and by most major texts dealing with parliamentary practice and procedure. That Mr Ram is unaware of such excruciatingly trite matters cannot be a fault attributable to the Attorney General.
The letter next contends that the Office of the Attorney General has no input whatsoever in that interregnum between when a bill is passed by the National Assembly and its assent by the President. It seems to have escaped the author that the Attorney General’s Chambers houses the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Additionally, the Attorney General remains, constitutionally, the principal legal adviser of the state apparatus. A concatenation of these functional responsibilities has crystallized into a practice of great utility dating back to the days of the colonial Assembly which requires all bills passed by the House to be sent to the Chambers of the Attorney General by the Clerk of the National Assembly, firstly to be examined by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and then by the Attorney General, who issues an assent certificate advising His Excellency, the President, that he may properly assent to the bill, provided, of course, that in the opinion of the Attorney General, the bill is in order. This document, together with the bill, is returned to the Clerk of the National Assembly for transmission to His Excellency. The efficacy of this salutary practice is patently underscored by the fact that the Clerk of the National Assembly, since colonial times, has never been a person formally trained in law and there has never been a legal officer intrinsically attached to the Parliament.
The letter refers to certain Standing Orders and constitutional provisions in support of the contentions advanced. The fact that an extant practice or procedure is not expressly captured by a statute, the Constitution, or, the Standing Orders, does not, ipso facto, render the same either wrong or unconstitutional, is a concept with which the author is, not surprisingly, unfamiliar. Regnant and conventional prudence have long dictated both in law and in parliamentary procedure that ancient usage, customs and practice will and indeed have been employed for centuries to supplement legal vacuums wherever they manifest themselves. But alas, familiarity with these concepts demands a little more than a superficial acquaintance with the law. The expressed and implied ad hominem assault, which has now assumed a permanent feature in this author’s public utterances about me, though recognised, is simply unworthy of my response.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall
Attorney-General and Minister
of Legal Affairs
