President cites 'different reasons' for not assenting to bills
Stabroek News
February 8, 2007
President Bharrat Jagdeo says he did not assent to a number of bills passed last year for "different reasons" including lobbying from the private sector and because of his personal concerns as well.
Asked at a media briefing he hosted at the Office of the President yesterday why he did not assent to ten bills passed in the National Assembly last year when they were presented by his government and unanimously approved, Jagdeo said that "for different reasonsā€¦Some because of the lobby from the private sector."
Referring to the fundamental rights bill which sought to make sexual preference a fundamental right, Jagdeo said that there was a precedent in him not assenting to bills before based on lobbying by interest groups. He recalled that he did not assent to that bill "because the churches asked me not to assent to it."
He said he did not assent last year to the bill that dealt with an Infrastructure Development Fund at the time because of current constraints, which "may not be an appropriate way of dealing with public finances." One of the views expressed, he said was that it might not lead to proper oversight from the Auditor General's Office.
He said that he wanted to be sure that all the issues were addressed properly before he assented to them. "There are explanations for the different bills," he said.
Asked why he did not give his assent when there was unanimity in the National Assembly on the bills, he said that the issue was not only that of lobbying as he, too, had concerns. He said the President of the United States has veto powers. "Here we seem to want to emasculate the Presidency and I am not going to allow that. I will exercise the authority given to me by the constitution," he declared. The President did not go on to explain why he had not complied with the constitutional requirement to formally provide reasons to the Speaker of Parliament for not assenting to the bills.
Jagdeo's failure to give assent to the bills passed during the last parliamentary session will force the government to reintroduce them. While the President is required by the constitution to give explanations for not assenting to the bills, Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran told this newspaper that he had not received any official information about the unassented bills.
According to the constitution, the President may assent to or refuse to assent to a bill sent to him after being passed in Parliament. However, Article 170 of the Constitution stipulates that he shall signify that he assents or withholds assent, in which case the bill is sent back to the National Assembly for the members to reconsider it. He is required to return the bill to the Speaker within 21 days of the date when it was presented to him with a message stating his reasons for not giving his assent. The constitution provides that when a bill is returned in this manner, it shall not be presented to the President for assent unless within six months a two-thirds majority of elected members resolves that it should be assented to. The President must then assent to the bill within ninety days after receiving it for the second time. Previously, the head of state had the power to dissolve Parliament in such a situation, but this was removed after constitutional reforms.
The bills passed in the National Assembly but not assented to last year included the Consumer Protection Bill 2006 designed to promote and protect consumer interests in relation to the supply of goods and services and to establish a Consumer Affairs Commission and a Consumer Fair Trading Tribunal for related purposes.
The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 2006 provided for cooperation between Guyana and other countries in criminal cases. Its coverage included assistance in obtaining evidence and information, locating and identifying persons or things by search and seizure, serving documents, transferring prisoners temporarily, and tracing, freezing, seizing or confiscating proceeds of crime, subject to the Laws of Guyana. The bill would have given effect to the scheme relating to such matters within the Commonwealth, and to provide for mutual assistance between Guyana and countries with which it has a treaty concerning such issues. The bill was crafted to give full effect to the Caribbean Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Serious Criminal Matters, meeting one of the mandatory requirements of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy.
The Holiday with Pay (Amendment) Bill 2006 provided for the court to impose a fine on the employer and to order payment for the worker which "in the opinion of the court represents the wages due to that worker as payment for all outstanding holidays with pay." It mandated that employers pay workers one and one-half times normal pay on holidays, after a worker would have worked seven and one-quarter of an hour in any one day, and after a worker would have worked forty and three-quarters of an hour in any one week. These were to have brought about a harmonisation with the principal legislation.
The Employment of Young Persons and Children (Amendment) Bill 2006 would have provided for young people from the age of 15 to be employed subject to certain exceptions. The law would have also required the employer of any young person to keep a register of the person's name, date of birth, and the date of employment and the date the person leaves and for inspection of the register at any time by the Chief Labour Officer (CLO) or any one authorised by the CLO.
The other bills passed but not assented to were the Municipal and District Councils Bill 2006; the Shops (Consolidation) (Amendment) Bill 2006; the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006; the Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Bill 2006; the Licensed Premises (Amendment) Bill 2006; the Labour (Conditions of Employment of Certain Workers) (Amendment) Bill 2006.