|
What transpired in the National Assembly on 23rd April, 2009 when the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2009 came up for deliberation is indicative of the parlous state of affairs that our legislative process is in. This bad state is wholly as a result of the hapless undemocratic culture of the Government’s leading legislative cabal. Their Parliamentary behavior and strategy range from sheer recklessness to outright deception.
Now I do appreciate that the volume and complexity of legislation put up by the Government presents a very serious challenge in view of the limited skills and expertise. Moreso, when those two hallmarks of good legislation are demanded – clarity and certainty.
So Government lawmakers, to be true to their oath, must with intellectual honesty and thorough care proceed to inform themselves first, and then the National Assembly as to the state of the existing law, its defects if any, and the rationale as to why the legislation is required.
Sad to say, the PPP/C Government proved that once again these thresholds were not reached. Worse still was that the PNC/R was involved in the co-piloting of this Amendment. This political combination as is wont, caused a dramatic crash-landing of the Bill in the Assembly thereby creating the necessary loud noises and fireworks, resulting in the end with an outrageous regression of our law.
The original section 8 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 2000 had made provision for the remuneration of one scrutineer within each registration division who was appointed by the majority party, and one appointed from the combined minority parties. The remuneration would be such as may be determined by the Election Commission.
The Election Commission in its wisdom, or absence thereof, had decided that whatever remunerations will be paid for the recent 2007/8 registration exercise, half of it will go to the PPP/C and the other half to the PNC/R. The AFC did not like this distribution as the combined minority parties could not mean the PNC/R. That party was only one constituent thereof.
As is now known, the AFC took the matter to the High Court for a resolution. Justice Jainarine Singh ruled that scrutineers appointed by the combined minority parties were to be paid by the Election Commission in a manner that was fair, reasonable and just, and this meant an allocation of money to the combined minority parties proportionate to their numerical strength in the National Assembly. Since the AFC had 21% of the numerical strength within the opposition in the Assembly, this meant that its allocation out of the $100M for the combined minority parties would have realized for it the sum of $21M upon the appointment and work of its scrutineers.
The PPP/C and PNC/R which dominates the Election Commission, did not like this obviously fair ruling. Both these parties for different reasons detest the AFC being on the Guyanese political landscape. The Elections Commission thus appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal through a distinguished judgement of Chancellor Carl Singh affirmed Justice Jainarine Singh in every respect. Mr. Ashton Chase’s argument on behalf of the Elections Commission – “But how could the lower Court rule so if the Statute section 8 did not expressly state so?” – was answered by the Appellate Court thus: “The answer to this question is in treating the Elections Commission as having the power inferentially to effect payment proportionately to the combined minority parties in the National Assembly and thereby achieving the desirable standards of reasonableness and fairness.”
Mr. Robert Corbin had said to the media after this decision that he did not mind at all if the remuneration to scrutineers is done equitably and proportionately, and that a situation meeting this standard should be provided for.
Of course the entire world knows that the Elections Commission did not bother with either of these decisions of these Courts. The AFC was left out in the cold. It was not allowed to appoint its 21% of the scrutineers and hence did not get 21% of the remuneration.
The Amendment Bill of 2009, which came up for debate on Thursday last, was therefore to have given effect to the spirit of the decision of the Court of Appeal and High Court. “It was what inspired this Amendment,” boasted the Honourable Attorney General. So too, said Mr. Khellawan Lall, Neil Kumar and Amna Ally, and a very irritable Mr. Corbin, who not being billed to speak spoke very lengthily.
But the contents of the Bill, which was passed in the National Assembly by the PPP/C and PNC/R, were as far removed from what these Courts ruled as like the North Pole is from the South. The entirety of the Amendment was to reverse the proportionality principle that the Courts of our land held!
What these two parties co-piloted was but the restoration of the status quo just before Justice Jainarine Singh’s High Court ruling, that is that one half of the remuneration will go to the “governing party” (meaning PPP/C); and, the other half to the “the combined opposition parties” (meaning the PNC/R). To make doubly sure that the Elections Commission does not allocate on a proportionality model as the Courts ruled, the said Amendment Bill provided: “The list of scrutineers of the combined opposition of the National Assembly to be remunerated shall be submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the other opposition parties in the National Assembly.”
How could this be an effectuation of the proportionality principle of the High Court and Court of Appeal? This Amendment ensures that the AFC is left out, and that the proportionality principle is thrown through the window.
So all the talk about this Bill being the effectuation of what the Courts ruled was either recklessness or an attempt at deception! And if it was neither, it was definitely political vulgarity - dominant in an era I thought long gone.
What happened here reminded me of the days when a Forbes Burnham National Assembly had similarly “reversed” the then Court of Appeal’s judgement in Guysuco v Teemal (1983), a case which dealt with remuneration to workers, by passing legislation called the Labour Amendment Act 1984. I remembered the hue and cry made by the PPP, GAWU and even one Mr. C.R Ramson he being one of the lawyers who argued successfully for Teemal in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. And you know how he can get on! I use to hear him and enjoy hearing him as I was just out of Law School.
What Forbes Burnham did then, this PPP/C Government has no qualms in doing today – with Mr. C.R. Ramson SC on this occasion at its law-making helm.
The Honourable Attorney General in opening this debate literally mocked at Justice Jainarine Singh and had the audacity to erroneously assert about the Court of Appeal that “no written reason was advanced for its affirmation of the High Court Judge.”
What colossal ignorance! The very erudite reasoning of Chancellor Carl Singh is in Volume 72 West Indian Law Reports pages 258 to 269. The Elections Commission indicated it would appeal to the CCJ, but did not as a result of better sense prevailing. Just to add, the Elections Commission to date has not even paid the costs it was ordered to pay after having lost the case.
Exhibit some more care Honourable Attorney General. I learnt you later sincerely apologized for your mea culpa in ascribing to the Court of Appeal no written reasoning. This is a good sign, a hopeful sign.
|
