PNCR abstention blocks ERC membership motion
Stabroek News
May 13, 2007
A motion for the nomination of members to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) was defeated in the National Assembly on Thursday after the PNCR1G abstained. As a result, there was not the two-thirds majority needed for the motion to be approved.
The motion, brought to the House by Prime Minister Sam Hinds, sought to have the National Assembly determine the entities to be consulted and from which members will be appointed to the ERC in accordance with Article 212 B (1) (a) of the Constitution. The motion further resolved that the number of nominees for each group of entities be: one member from the Christian religion, one from the Hindu religion, one from the Muslim religion, one from the trades unions, one from the private sector organizations, one from the youth organizations and one from the women's organizations.
The motion also sought to expand the list of consulted entities for nominating members from 117 to 162 in number.
The PNCR was strong in its opposition of the motion because of the final clause of the motion's second schedule, which the party said contravened the Constitution. The party said that unless there was constitutional reform, the motion as it was printed was in breach of Article 212 (b) of the Constitution.
The National Assembly approved an opposition-proposed amendment to the motion, though the motion's defeat was imminent.
The Alliance for Change supported the motion, as indicated by member Sheila Holder.
The troublesome part of the motion, which was amended by deletion, was the last paragraph of the second schedule: Consensual Mechanism for the Nomination by Entities of Members of the Ethnic Relations Commission. Originally this read: "…Where the entities in that Group are unable to reach agreement, the nominees of that Group would be submitted to the Standing Committee which makes the final determination."
"The PNCR cannot subscribe to this motion since it seeks to give powers to this committee [in contravention] of the Constitution," PNCR front bencher Winston Murray said.
He said he was pleased to hear of the expanded list of entities that would have to be consulted, but that did not take into account the increase in categories.
He suggested that the motion be deferred until May 22, as the House had nothing to lose by such a deferment. He said the unconstitutionality of the motion could not escape notice.
However, PPP/C member Gail Teixeira said that when the matter was engaging the attention of the Standing Committee to appoint members of commissions, this matter of unconstitutionality didn't come up. "What the motion brought to this House is the work of a collective," she said, adding that the issue as raised by Murray was of no consequence.
"The last paragraph was adopted by all of us [in the Committee]," she said. "[But] if there was a violation of the Constitution we stand corrected."
She had asked that the PNCR not block the motion since its passage allowed for the consultation stage to begin.
PNCR member Debra Backer said if she agreed to something in a committee it didn't bind the rest of the House and made the point that it was not the PNCR's intention to stymie the work of the ERC. The PNCR members abstained from voting when a division was called, leading to the required two-thirds majority not being realized.
According to the second schedule, all the entities in each group immediately on the passage of the motion, should be written to by the Clerk of the National Assembly inviting them to send a representative on an appointed day to present the name of their nominee and to participate with other entities in that group to determine the nominee.
It said the nominee and substitute chosen to represent the group must be persons who are competent to contribute positively to the work of the ERC and who are committed to ensuring that it discharges all of its functions. They should have earned public respect and must be of unquestionable and unblemished character and have integrity.