Heated row stalls review of Executive Presidency
by Michelle Elphage
A HEATED row between two political party representatives, broke off consideration of proposals by the Constitution Reform Commission, for revising the immunities and powers of the President. About one hour into the meeting Thursday afternoon, an argument broke out between Minister Reepu Daman Persaud of the governing People's Progressive Party Civic (PPP/Civic) and Dr Rupert Roopnaraine of the Alliance For Guyana (AFG). They disagreed over the question of amending article 95 of the 1980 document regarding the Prime Minister's accession to the Presidency. The loud verbal sparring between the two, forced Chairman Mr Ralph Ramkarran to call a ten-minute recess to decide whether Commissioners should be allowed overnight consideration of a four-page paper submitted by Roopnaraine, amending the powers and immunities of the President. This was finally agreed to, along with a suggestion from Persaud that a sub-committee should also review the proposed amendments. When this decision was made, the members had already voted on two recommendations put forward by Roopnaraine. The first suggested amendment read: "There should be no discretion of the President to convene, prorogue or dissolve Parliament or a Regional Democratic Council or any other elected council. These interventions in the life of the National Assembly and of other elected councils of Government should take place according to times fixed by statute, or by the Constitution." And although, Mr Vincent Alexander of the People's National Congress (PNC) with the permission of the Commission, proposed adding, "Parliament by a weighted majority shall have the power to prorogue and dissolve an elected body other than the Parliament," the motion was voted inconclusive with only ten Commissioners favouring this change. Four Commissioners voted against it, while five declined. Commissioners then unanimously voted that the term "Minority Leader" should be changed to "Leader of the Opposition". Fourteen members supported the proposal that the "Leader of the Opposition shall be elected by and from among members of the National Assembly who do not support the Government. The meeting shall be held under the chairmanship of the Speaker who shall not vote." Five members abstained from voting. In arguments preceding the motion being put to vote, Mr Miles Fitzpatrick of the Guyana Bar Association, argued in favour of the change contending that the present article which allows for the "President in his judgement to appoint" can give leeway for the creation of a "creature". "If a judgement is to be exercised, the person should not be in an adversarial position. It creates a conflict of interest," Fitzpatrick argued. Persaud, in his contribution, said that the change in the amendment was not crucial, noting that there were qualifications for the President's judgement to be made. This caused Alexander to remark that if the change was "no big thing" then why couldn't it be done. He added that as the present Constitution is written, the President cannot be taken to court, if it is decided that the Minority Leader was appointed in bad judgement. According to article 184 (1) of the Constitution, "The President shall, if the person is willing to be appointed, appoint as Minority Leader the elected member of the National Assembly who, in his judgement, is best able to command the support of a majority of those elected members who do not support the Government." A question was raised by Mr Aubrey Collins of The United Force (TUF), as to what would happen if there were two such persons with control over an equal number of elected members who did not support the Government. Constitutional lawyer and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guyana (UG), Professor Harold Lutchman, who was present, was requested by the Chairman to make a contribution. And in his intervention, Dr Lutchman also cautioned that the Commission observe Article 184 (3) which says that the President can revoke the appointment of the Minority Leader, if in his judgement, that person is no longer able to command majority support of those elected members who do support the Government. Mr Bernard DeSantos, of the PPP/Civic said that although he agreed that there were conditions for the President's judgement to be made, the article was "contradictory". DeSantos said he didn't think the President was the best person to appoint the leader of the Opposition, and he suggested that the task should go to a neutral person. At one point during the discussion, Ms Philomena Sahoye-Shury said she needed time to think through the recommendations. To this request Alexander said that the Commission did not have the luxury of time. "This is crunch time. Time to make decisions," he declared. Alexander said it was surprising that colleagues who had in the past argued for changes to the 1980 Constitution, were now hardly advocating for those changes. The agenda items could not be concluded because some Commissioners asked to be excused to attend a lecture, thereby depriving the body of a quorum. The Commission also considered papers put forward by Commissioners, Ms Anande Trotman, the Women's representative and Secretary Mr Haslyn Parris (PNC), on Children's Rights, Women's Rights and Gender Equality. This sparked a heated exchange between Commissioners Trotman and Alexander about "male reactions" to the proposals on women. A fiery presentation was made also by Sahoye-Shury, who disputed the point made by Mr Vidyanand Persaud, the Hindu representative, that certain rights should be constitutional. Persaud had posited that there was sufficient domestic legislation dealing with the issues presented and the Constitution, therefore, should not be "encumbered" with them. "The time has come (for us) to realise that if it is not enshrined, it will never happen," Sahoye-Shury stressed. Trotman was tasked with taking the papers on women, children and gender, to experts and bringing them back to the Commission by Monday. The meeting was adjourned to yesterday to continue with the previous day's agenda, which included the consideration of Constitutional offices, Commissions, Systems of Government, Parliament and Minority rights. Alexander has presented a paper on amendments to functions of Parliament for the Commission's perusal.
|