The opposition APNU+AFC yesterday condemned what is said were efforts by the PPP/C government to dismantle the “guardrails” of democracy by trying to force a change in the Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament.
In a statement last night APNU+AFC said: “In this most recent instance, they seek to erode the meaning and spirit of Standing Order SO 82 (2) which grants the main Opposition in the National Assembly the right and power to select the Chairman of that Committee.
“There is a significant history and an important purpose why this entitlement belongs to the main Opposition. Scrutiny of spending and of all other financial matters demands impartiality; and, a Chairman from the Opposition appointed exclusively by the main Opposition is fundamental for such impartiality.
“The APNU+AFC thus finds reprehensible the device and artifice being utilised by the PPP to erode this entrenched norm, which is to demand a removal of the duly appointed Chairman David Patterson via a no-confidence motion. The APNU+AFC maintains that the lawful selector of the Chairman of PAC is the main Opposition…
“In the last Parliament the APNU+AFC Government respected the Opposition’s PPP appointee, Mr Irfaan Ali, who was allowed to chair the committee, despite being charged with multiple offences, because we respected the sanctity of the tradition that was enshrined in the Standing Orders and the non-violability of SO 82 (2). This longstanding standard should be reciprocated and borne out in this Parliament”.
Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs has been advised that Standing Order (SO) 95(4) does not override Standing Order 82(2) but that it can be used for the continuation of the business of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) through the elections of a chairperson on a day to day basis.
According to the legal opinion provided by Attorney at Law Keavon Bess the framers of the Standing Orders (SO) did not intend for the work and function of the PAC to be stymied by the actions of the Chair or main opposition. Bess concludes that a wide literal interpretation of 95(4) posits that all members of the PAC including government members are eligible for election as Chair “but their tenure shall be for the day of his/her election or the day of the meeting.”
He went further to advise that SO 82 (2) be amended to provide for the resignation of the Chairperson and the election of a replacement in accordance with what is stipulated therein.
This amendment should allow the committee to “avoid future absurdity and confusion,” he stated.
The opinion was provided in response to a request for Isaacs that he be advised whether Standing Order 95 (4) overrides Standing Order 82 (2) whereby a member who is not a member of the main opposition in the Assembly, in the absence of the Chairperson can be elected Chairperson of the PAC for the day of his or her election.
Scope
The scope of the Standing Order was, according to PAC Chair Patterson, questioned during a meeting last week when the government members of the Committee attempted to elect one of their own members as Chair so as to pass a motion for his removal.
In an invited comment he told Stabroek News yesterday that his “non-legal” reading of the advice is that Standing Order 82(2) supersedes 95(4).
“The Clerk asked a question and the answer he got was no…the lawyer has indicated that the only way one clause can override the other would be by the National Assembly amending the Standing Orders hence the request for a meeting on the way forward,” he noted. That meeting scheduled originally scheduled for March 31 has been postponed because Patterson is unavailable.
“It’s a short week, holy week and … I have already made plans well ahead,” Patterson indicated.
The motion for Patterson’s removal was laid in the Committee last month by Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, Gail Teixeira. It calls for Patterson to recuse himself as Chair due to a lack of confidence on the part of the government. No other justification for the motion has been provided in the Committee.
The February 1 meeting of the Committee stalled after Patterson recused himself from the Chair during the consideration of the motion and all other Opposition members refused to take his place. The same thing happened on March 15.
In a letter published in the March 18 edition of the Stabroek News, Patterson stated that an attempt was made to invoke Standing Order 95 (4) which states that if the Chairperson is unable to be present at any meeting, the Committee shall elect another Chairperson whose tenure of office shall be for the day of his or her election.
“Legal advice was sought from Sanjeev Datadin (the only lawyer on the Committee) and quite unsurprisingly, he claimed that Clause 95 outweighed Clause 82, thus the Committee can proceed to elect a government Chairperson. Juretha Fernandes on behalf of the Opposition objected on the grounds that the advice was bad and biased as well as the fact that the Clerk should not be relying on advice from a member of the Committee who has a vested interest in the outcome of the matter,” Patterson stated.
The meeting was therefore aborted to allow Isaacs to seek the advice he has now received.
Patterson has been the subject of controversy since his successor Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill accused him and his former junior Minister Annette Ferguson of accepting millions of dollars in personal gifts from agencies under their purview.
He has denied the accusations and resisted all attempts to remove him as PAC chair.
His colleagues in the House and his party the Alliance for Change (AFC) have stood with him stressing that the motion is an improper attempt to dictate to the Opposition.
“We see this as a bad precedent government is attempting to set….They want to say to us who should be chair…the Opposition has reposed confidence in Patterson to be Chairman it is not for the government to like Patterson in that post. That is not our concern,” PAC member Jermaine Figueira told Stabroek News last week.
He added that it is improper to demand a removal based on an allegation as he reminded that the current President chaired the PAC while facing 19 fraud charges before the Court.
“The man has not been found guilty of any criminality or any offence,” Figueira reiterated.
The stalemate at the PAC has stalled key work including examination of the backlogged reports of the Office of the Auditor General on the Public Accounts of Guyana and the initiation of the process for the selection of new members of the Public Procurement Commission.
