ERC appointment delayed
-- after PNCR-1G abstains from vote
By Chamanlall Naipaul
Guyana Chronicle
May 11, 2007
THE appointment of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) will now be delayed as a motion moved by the government in the National Assembly yesterday failed to gain the constitutionally required two-thirds majority when the main opposition People’s National Congress Reform-One Guyana (PNCR-1G) abstained from voting.
In a bid to woo support from the PNCR-1G, the government amended the motion following a legal debate lasting some three hours, but this still failed and when the vote was taken, the PNCR-1G called for a division.
Although the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the Guyana Action Party/Rise Organise and Rebuild (ROAR) party voted for the motion, it failed by four votes to gain the required 44 to allow for a two thirds majority.
A spirited effort, which created a stir in the House, by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo to salvage the situation also failed, when he argued that Standing Order 50 (2) prescribes that the two-thirds majority is determined by the number of members present who actually voted yes or no, and should not include abstention.
However, he was overruled by Speaker, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran.
The motion was moved by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds who commended the work of the members of the previous ERC, whose term has come to an end, noting that the number of organisations identified for consultations with respect to the constituting of the ERC has increased from 117 to 162 including religious, trade union and other civic organisations.
Mr. Winston Murray of the PNCR-1G said the appointment of such a body should not be the object of contention as far as it is practicable, but identified several areas of concern in the motion put forward by the Prime Minister.
The most contentious issue with respect to the motion was in the final clause which stated: “Where the entities in that group are unable to reach agreement, the nominees of that group would be submitted to the Standing Committee which will make the final determination.”
According to Murray, the Standing Committee does not have the constitutional authority to make an appointment in the event that a group cannot reach a consensus on a nominee to the ERC.
This, he submitted would be a violation of Article 212 (b) of the Constitution of Guyana.
He further contended that the interpretation of the wording of one of the sections of the motion does not allow for the dynamics in society and should have been left open to permit change when the need arises.
Murray also claimed that while the number of organisations identified for consultation has increased there is a need for the categories of organisations to broaden and include engineering and other professional associations.
Ms. Sheila Holder of the AFC, who expressed her support for the motion, suggested that the services of a legal adviser should be sought to help the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments.
Chairperson of the Committee, Ms. Gail Teixeira chided the PNCR-1G for the position it took on the matter, asserting that the motion originated out of a collective decision of the committee on which that party has representatives.
The members of the committee are Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, Mr. Robert Persaud, Mr. Robeson Benn, Ms. Priya Manickchand, Ms. Jennifer Webster, and Ms. Gail Teixeira - (People’s Progressive Party/Civic); Mrs. Deborah Backer, Dr. George Norton and Ms. Amna Ally - (PNCR-1G) and Ms. Sheila Holder - (AFC).
Teixeira recalled that the committee which functioned during the life of the 8th Parliament was not as successful as the present one as remarkable progress has been achieved in its five-month existence.
In obvious reference to attempts by the PNCR-1G to stymie the appointment of constitutional commissions, she hoped that its present stance “is not a repeat of history.”
Backer, however, denied it was an attempt by her party to stymie proceedings and offered that while there was no disagreement within the committee, the overlooking of the possible constitutional infringement could have been an oversight and in such situations it is the duty of the House to point out such mistakes.
Mr. Hinds, recognising the objectionable part of the motion could be a possible infringement of the Constitution, in a last ditch effort sought to have a compromise through backroom negotiations with the PNCR-1G but this failed to materialise.