Our legislative process: More frankness less arrogance needed
Alliance For Change Column
Kaieteur News
February 4, 2007
The primary function of legislators in our National Assembly is the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana .
The quality of this law-making process, however, depends on a number of circumstances. One such significant circumstance is the frankness of the proposers and movers of Bills, who, in our Westminster model, are Ministers of Government who are all present and engaged in the National Assembly.
This frankness has to do with being lucid, unequivocal and principled as regards the policy behind the Bill so that the deficiency of the existing law is made clear to all, and the remedying of this deficiency is made intelligible to all. Hence, such frankness entails consequential proscriptions which must necessarily be followed by such Ministers.
A Minister must never overload a Bill, whether substantive or amending, with verbiage which obscures the policy behind it and which clouds its intention. A Minister must never seek to misrepresent or deceive the Assembly as regards the true source and origin of a Bill, and the real purpose behind its provisions.
A Minister must ensure that a Bill in his name satisfies the constitutionality test; or, at the very minimum, seriously give consideration to avoid the Bill being held unconstitutional by our High Court on ground that it contravenes fundamental rights or basic doctrines or any provision of the constitution for that matter.
A Minister must never seek to arrogate unto himself the law-making process by the powerful device of empowering himself with sweeping powers through Ministerial regulations-making in all and sundry matters pertaining to the Bill.
This can diminish the efficacy of the National Assembly and do serious damage to our democracy since deliberation and scrutiny of regulations, more properly termed subsidiary legislation, is usually negligible, if not non-existent.
Debates on subsidiary legislation, unlike primary legislation, are never guaranteed.
In this my 16th year as a Parliamentarian, I cannot recall one instance where there has been a debate on subsidiary legislation.
Parliamentarians, both in Government and Opposition, must be alert and perceptive to identify the undermining of these proscriptions by the Executive arm collectively and Ministers individually. This is our bounden duty and obligation.
Moreover, once we identify such undermining, we must be courageous enough to stand up and show, at the very least, a righteous indignation against such impropriety which, if not nipped in the bud, generally result in authoritarianism.
Since the commencement of our 9th Parliament after the 2006 Elections, a majority of the Bills presented in the House thus far have succumbed to a breach, in one way or the other, of one or more of these proscriptions. This is not a nice start. What makes it uglier is oftentimes the arrogance exhibited by Ministers in attempting to rebut exposures of theses instances. The most glaring example to date is the instance of the Casino Gambling Bill.
Another recent example which exhibited a dogmatic attitude on Government's part was when the AFC objected to the passage of the Custom's Amendment Bill 8 of 2007, only last week.
The AFC's objections were on good grounds. Firstly, this Bill, purported as being a piece of sunset legislation, did not have any expiry date. Nor did the Minister indicate that its duration was going to be only for World Cup Cricket, like the other Minister did, in most explicit terms, in relation to the three other pieces of sunset legislation, namely Bills 5, 6 and 7 of 2007.
Secondly, it was shamelessly bad drafting, which shrouded the intent and purpose of its provisions, and gave the portfolio Minister huge powers at regulations-making.
Thirdly, the provisions were duplicitous as what they pretended to remedy were already taken care of by the Immigration Amendment Bill and the existing provisions of the Customs Act.
Why then this Bill? Why not a clause for an expiry date, say 1st June 2007, like the other Bills? Why did the Government refuse the inclusion of an expiry date moved by the AFC?
As I argued in the House, there is a sinister motive behind this Bill. It is not cricket when you are going to use cricket to get at boat owners who the Government feels are smugglers!
Here is the Bill in its full terms:
” 67A. (1) Without prejudice to section 67, the Minister may make regulations requiring any master of an aircraft or ship expected to arrive in Guyana to furnish advance information relating to any passenger or cargo or both on board of such aircraft or ship in the form and manner as may be provided in the regulations.
(2) Where a master of an aircraft or ship who is required to furnish any advance information under the regulations made under subsection (1) –
(a) intentionally fails to furnish the advance information; or
(b) recklessly furnishes incomplete or false advance information,
he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty million dollars as may be prescribed in the regulations.”
The Minister indicated in rebuttal to my objections to this Bill that it came from the Caricom drafters, as if to say that the Government had nothing to do with it. I made contact with officials there. I will forever keep their confidences. Suffice to say, they were flabbergasted!
Khemraj Ramjattan
Leader AFC