Opposition cannot craft policies for gov’t to implement – Nandlall

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall recently said that based on the evidence available, there is obviously a patent misunderstanding and misconception of the role of the opposition, by the opposition themselves and, they have created a wrong expectation by their supporters.

Minister Nandlall explained that the parliamentary opposition sees their role as one to fashion policies for the executive to execute as they believe they have some kind of power to instruct that they be carried out, however that is not the role of the opposition and unless they understand that, the 10th Parliament will not bear fruit as a majority Parliament. “They have a glorious role as a majority if they are to give effect to their role in a proper way… the Public Accounts Committee for example is a very powerful committee… they control all the committees in Parliament and that is where they ought to be wielding their power… not to bring motions to try to change the executive’s decisions,” Minister Nandlall said.
He explained that it is the executive’s role to craft decision to administer the affairs of this country and if they (government) do not do so in a manner that will benefit citizens, then the opposition can/ will vote them out. “The role of the opposition is to emphasise where we (government) have been deficient in those policies and not to craft their own policies, and then impose it on the government and use the majority of one, to tell the executive to implement it,” Minister Nandlall explained.
He added that such measures used by the opposition to create a policy, would not be binding because the government must craft its own policies, as they (government) will, in crafting those policies, embark on consultation with various bodies including the opposition, who will have an input.
Additionally, there cannot be legal, parliamentary or constitutional consequences for government if they do not adhere to such motions, or decisions made by Parliament. “There is no legal mechanism recognised by the Constitution of this country which would allow them to force the government to accept something the government does not want to accept,” Minister Nandlall said.
The attorney general asserted that the motion dealing with the no-confidence in Home Affairs Ministry Clement Rohee was wrong from the beginning because the Constitution of Guyana holds the executive collectively responsible to the Parliament and not an individual.
“The Constitution is very specific – Article 106… they can ask the whole government to resign, but you cannot ask one member of the executive to resign… the opposition in India sought to do a similar motion against a minister… this was challenged in the Indian Courts… The Indian Courts said that there is no individual responsibility which is owed to Parliament… so that motion ought not to have been put on the order paper by the clerk or the Speaker,” Minister Nandlall asserted.
He added that any action by the opposition which they may contemplate to take legally, following from that decision in Parliament on the basis of that no-confidence motion would be one that would be wrong in law, misconceived and would be struck out by a court.
Minister Nandlall explained that if the opposition used their one-seat majority to pass a no-confidence motion against the government, then the government will have to resign and within three months an election has to be called. The opposition in Guyana’s parliamentary structure and in most Parliaments designed by the Westminster model system of governance is mandated to exercise vigilance over the executive’s conduct. In the execution of their duties, they can scrutinise, criticise, examine the executive’s actions, ensure they are transparent, that public spending is done in an accountable fashion and the constitutional bodies which are to scrutinise government’s function do what is expected of them, Nandlall explained.