Persaud, Carberry trade letters over consultation on crime bills
Stabroek News
October 6, 2002

Related Links: Articles on anti-crime measures
Letters Menu Archival Menu

Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Reepu Daman Persaud says the PNC/R only have themselves to blame for the lack of consultation on the recently enacted crime bills.

The four anti-crime bills, which attracted criticism from the main opposition party and several other groups, were passed by a simple majority in the National Assembly on September 26.

In a letter dated October 3 and released to the media via the Government Information Agency (GINA) Persaud told the Opposition Chief Whip Lance Carberry that copies of the crime bills had been sent to Carberry since September 4 and again on September 19 when the National Assembly had convened for their first reading.

“I acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 27, 2002 and wish to state that the bills referred to in your letter were sent to you on September 4, 2002.

“The bills were again sent to you when the National Assembly was convened for their first reading on September 18, 2002. After the introduction of the bills, the National Assembly was scheduled to meet on September 23, 2002, but was postponed to September 26, 2002,” the letter from Persaud stated.

Persaud’s letter was a reply to one sent to him on September 27 by Carberry which expressed concern about the minister’s response to an earlier item of correspondence from him.

In his letter dated September 27, Carberry had charged that Persaud’s letter of September 26, which had not been “delivered to Congress Place until 13:45 hrs... when the National Assembly would have been about to convene its sitting,” smacked of insecurity and arrogance, giving the impression that an earlier meeting between them had constituted just an exercise in futility.

Carberry’s comments came in response to those in Persaud’s letter in which he had said: “My instructions are to urge you to attend the parliamentary sitting which had been rescheduled from Monday last to Thursday with the limited purpose of debating the bills, suggesting possible amendments, which amendments the government will be prepared to consider before enacting into law.”

Persaud in his correspondence last Thursday said a request for a meeting by the opposition PNC/R in relation to the bills had only been made for the first time on September 23 and “...I responded promptly and we met with the Hon. Attorney General on September 24, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.”

At that meeting it was said the Attorney General discussed the bills fully with Carberry who suggested that a team from the PNC/R and the government meet to further discuss the matter, an offer to which the Attorney General is reported to have readily agreed and proposed the following day.

At that meeting Persaud acknowledged that Carberry had suggested that this might be difficult while undertaking to make contact with him.

According to Persaud’s letter, Carberry’s response dated September 25 only reached him on the morning of September 26, but Carberry contends it was delivered and signed for at mid-afternoon on September 25 at the Office of the President.

The letter from the opposition chief whip, also released to the media, had stated, among other things: “I wish to repeat that this [the September 25 meeting] is impractical since, given the time of our meeting yesterday, the members of the PNC/R legal team will only receive these documents this morning and will obviously need reasonable time for due professional consideration thereof. I repeat my undertaking that we will try to have a meeting with your team as early as is practically and reasonably possible.”

Carberry’s letter was carbon-copied to AG Doodnauth Singh, Speaker of the National Assembly, Hari N (Ralph) Ramkarran, ROAR Leader, Ravi Dev and GAP/WPA parliamentary representative, Sheila Holder. It mentioned that the proposed meeting had been agreed to based on assurances from the AG that he was willing to hold consultations with his party or any other group to discuss their “serious concerns and reservations about the bills.”

Further, he said, after the PNC/R legal team had had an opportunity to study the documents given to him by the AG he would have contacted the parliamentary affairs minister to arrange a meeting “at a mutually convenient time for our team to meet with the Attorney General and his team.”

However, according to Carberry’s letter, the PNC/R “were shocked and disappointed to hear Dr Luncheon’s arrogant announcement that, regardless of any concerns or objections from the PNC/R and the opposition, the bills would be passed in the National Assembly on Thursday September 26, 2002.”

But Persaud in his letter urged the main opposition party to reconsider its absence from sittings of the National Assembly, contending that their participation would allow them the opportunity to fully utilise available parliamentary mechanisms in order to contribute to the national debate on all issues.

He further reiterated what he said was the administration’s policy of consulting and allowing for reasonable and constructive contributions from the PNC/R and other groups and assured Carberry that they would maintain that position.

The opposition PNC/R, however, in their September 27 letter to Persaud questioned whether the party could believe anything said by the government, especially as it “continues to experience manifestations of bad faith from you [Persaud] and your colleagues?”

The PNC/R also continued to blame the government for the inability to resolve the present impasse over the establishment of the seven new Standing Committees of the National Assembly, a sticking point between the two sides.