A delegation from opposition coalition APNU on Monday met with President Donald Ramotar and his team on “advancing the national governance agenda” but there was no apparent breakthrough on thorny laws or local government polls neither was a date agreed for Parliament to reconvene when the PPP/C administration will likely face the AFC’s motion of no-confidence.
Political observers say the APNU decision to meet with the President at this point could raise further doubts about the motion of no-confidence and perhaps in recognition of this, the opposition coalition reiterated yesterday it remains committed to supporting the vote when it is brought to the floor of the National Assembly.
Observers say that the government and APNU appear to be testing the waters for a political agreement that could seize the initiative from the Alliance For Change (AFC) which has dictated the agenda in recent weeks with its push for the no-confidence vote which would force general elections in three months. Observers say it would be in the PPP/C’s interest to stall both local government and national elections and to find a way to drive a wedge between APNU and the AFC. On other hand, observers say that APNU is seeking some tangible concession it can present to its supporters in the wake of months of negative publicity over its recent delegates conference and a deepening rift with its support base in Linden.
While the government was silent yesterday on the meeting, APNU issued a press release setting out the terms of the discussion. It also issued a separate press release reiterating its support for the motion of no-confidence.
Observers have posited that if it is indeed supportive of the no-confidence motion then that should have been uppermost in the talks with Ramotar and his team particularly since APNU has charged that the government has not entertained any productive dialogue in or out of Parliament over the last three years or made any concessions.
In its statement yesterday, APNU said it met with the PPP/C team with the aim of “advancing the national governance agenda”. It said APNU’s team was led by Brigadier David Granger and included parliamentarians Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, Basil Williams, Carl Greenidge and Joseph Harmon. The PPP/C team, led by President Ramotar, comprised parliamentarians Dr Ashni Singh, Irfaan Ali, Gail Teixeira and Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon.
APNU said “the meeting was held in the wake of the opposition’s year-long demand and public protests in support of early local government elections. APNU iterated its call for the President to name a date for the holding of local government elections. APNU also committed to collaborate on a process by which the President would assent to the Local Government Bill No. 12 of 2012; the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2013; the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act Bill No. 24 of 2012 and Bill No. 5 of 2013 and the Former President (Benefits and other Facilities) Bill No. 29 of 2012.”
The bills referred to by APNU have been mired in deep disagreement and Monday’s meeting was not the first time that the PPP/C government had said it would be prepared to discuss them. One of the local government bills which would strip powers from the Local Govern-ment Ministry and transfer these to local government organs has been particularly opposed by the government.
The Former President (Benefits and other Facilities) Bill No. 29 of 2012 which seeks to rein in huge benefits that former President Bharrat Jagdeo designed for himself was the subject of bitter controversy between the two sides and is unlikely to see any ground being yielded by the government.
The APNU press release added that Attorney General Anil Nandlall was at present attending a Financial Action Task Force meeting in Paris and, therefore, was absent from the APNU-PPP/C meeting. It said that the PPP/C team deferred making a decision on the Bills and on determining a date for local government elections.
Observers say this latter statement suggests that the government may be prepared to name a date even though over the last year or so it has steadfastly refused to do so and has offered a flurry of excuses as to why this is not possible.
The press release added that APNU “continued to press for a date for Local Government Elections and reaffirmed its commitment to support the No Confidence Motion in the National Assembly.”
Observers note that if APNU succeeded in having a date named for local government elections, that could upset the AFC’s drive for a no-confidence vote as the local government polls would have to be held while the government was in place.
Despite that possibility, APNU yesterday reiterated its backing for the motion.
In a statement, it said “In response to several misleading remarks circulating on social media; that talks are planned between APNU Chairman Brigadier David Granger and President Donald Ramotar to discuss a compromise to avoid passage of the No Confidence Motion tabled by the AFC…..
“APNU remains committed to supporting the No Confidence Motion when it is brought to the floor of the National Assembly of Guyana. Any suggestions to the contrary are malicious, scandalous and mendacious.”
APNU executive and MP, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine told Stabroek News yesterday that throughout the discussions on Monday it was suggested to the government that tripartite discussions would need to be held should a date for local government elections be selected.
While government Chief Whip, Teixeira was present at the meeting she was not pressed by the APNU representatives as to what was holding up the setting of a date for the sitting of the National Assembly.
Roopnaraine said that the government raised concerns over possibly setting a date for local government elections and then being faced with a no-confidence motion. When questioned further by the Stabroek News, Roopnaraine only said that the parties had an exchange of views on the way forward.
Meanwhile, Leader of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan yesterday said that while his party respects APNU’s political disposition, his party’s decision to draft and submit its no-confidence motion was based on the unauthorized spending of $4.5 billion this year by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh.
Ramjattan stated that the AFC as its own party was governed by its own reasons and as far as he was concerned the most important thing was “bringing an end to the crisis we are entering into,” adverting to the no-confidence motion.
He said that the AFC has not been invited to any talks with the government and that at this time he would not find it appropriate. He said “we are all independent political parties and the strategies and tactics employed by each of us will be different.”
Ramjattan noted that a motion of no confidence was necessary because the central government would continue to starve the elected local organs, “we would still have to go begging cap in hand.”
