Gov’t seeking legal opinion on appointment of ethnic relations nominees -Trotman

The government is seeking legal advice on whether a list of nominees for the Ethnic Relation Commis-sion (ERC), which was finalised by the last Parliament, can be endorsed by the new Parliament in order for their appointment, Governance Minister Raphael Trotman said on Wednesday.

Trotman was at the time responding to questions about a call by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo for the list of nominees to be appointed.

The minister, who was speaking at a post-Cabinet press briefing, also said he found the call strange since it was the now opposition PPP/C that failed to appoint the nominees while it was in government.

He noted that after a sometimes painful process the nominees of the new ERC were identified in the last Parliament. However, he said between July 10th, 2014 and November last year when Parliament was prorogued and when it was finally dissolved in February this year, then President Donald Ramotar made no steps to appoint the nominees, which would have included those selected by the PPP/C. “I find it passing strange that for whatever reasons then the PPP did not find favour with its own list… all of sudden now this list is being waved around and you are being dared,” Trotman said.

According to Trotman, the government is hoping that the PPP/C would agree to a process where the 11th Parliament would endorse the list that was produced by the 10th Parliament. If not, the process would have to be restarted, which is what the first legal opinion has indicated, Trotman said. He added that it would be unfortunate if the selection process has to be restarted because it had taken months for the list to be finalised.

“We are seeking a second opinion, hoping that that can point a way forward,” Trotman said.

Trotman also dismissed the claim by the opposition that the Ministry of Social Cohesion is usurping the functions of the ERC, while pointing out that the commission is a constitutional body and whether it is up and running or not it is the duty of a responsible government to seek social cohesion in society.

Meanwhile, Trotman confirmed that Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo is to head a government team to have national unity talks with the opposition.

However, Jagdeo has already indicated that his party would not have unity talks with the government due to what it claims is the administration’s arbitrary dismissal of persons in the public service due to their race or political affiliation.

Apart from Nagamootoo, the government team includes Trotman, Vice-presidents Khemraj Ramjattan and Carl Greenidge, Minister of State Joseph Harmon, Minister of Social Cohesion Amna Ally and Attorney-General Basil Williams.

Trotman said an invitation was extended to the PPP/C through Jagdeo when he recently met with President David Granger and he had indicated that he would consult with the party on the matter.

Asked if the Prime Minister was the best suited person to lead the team considering his acrimonious relationship with the PPP, of which he had been a long-standing member, Trotman said for there to be sincere, long lasting healing and reconciliation there is need “to confront the devils that beset us and lessen the way we demonise each other and deal with each other respectfully, whether we like each other or not.”

Nagamootoo left the PPP, which he had been with for most of his life, just before the 2011 elections and joined the AFC.

Yesterday, the PPP said it had noted the statement by Trotman, “touting” Nagamootoo as the “best person” to lead the negotiations.

The PPP said it wishes to state that if such a move is part of the so-called “fresh approach” by the APNU+AFC then it is “clearly a non-starter and will end up dead in the water.”

The opposition party said that knowing the dim view that the PPP holds of Nagamootoo, the APNU+AFC by insisting that he is their ‘best man’ to head the team must know that that initiative will go nowhere. It surmised that the Coalition objective is not to have any talks at all but to put the PPP/C on the defensive and to project the Party as refusing to engage in talks with the government.