President’s veto of bills grounded in Constitution

By Whitney Persaud –

Attorney General Anil Nandlall said the president has acted within the constitutional parameters when he withheld his assent to two opposition bills last Tuesday.
The decision by President Donald Ramotar to withhold his assent to two bills which emanated from the opposition benches in Parliament has received much criticism.
The two bills are the Former President’s Benefits and Other Facilities Bill 2012 and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Bill 2012. The joint opposition has accused the president of precipitating a constitutional crisis.
This, according to Nandlall was expected, however, he said the opposition’s arguments that the president has caused a “constitutional crisis” are rooted in fantasy, rather than reality.
He said the common reasons advanced by the president for withholding his assent in respect of both bills, is grounded in the Constitution itself and concerns the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
Referring to Article Eight of the Constitution, he highlighted that any law which is inconsistent with that article, is null and void.
“That article declares…the said Constitution to be the supreme law of Guyana and states that of any other law which is inconsistent with it, that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void,” Nandlall stated.
The gravamen of the list of reasons advanced by the president for withholding his assent is that the two bills collide with Article Eight of the Constitution and are accordingly void.
“The reasons tendered by the president are not fanciful, irrational or even political, but are indeed principled and legal. Obviously, one is free to disagree with the reasons proffered.  But that cannot be a rational basis for the injudicious assertion of a constitutional crisis.”
The minister lamented that a fundamental constitutional reality which must be recognised in this legislative matrix, is that the president is not a mere rubber-stamp of the National Assembly.
He said the president has a constitutionally endowed jurisdictional freedom to withhold his assent to bills if he believes them to be misconceived and wrong in principle.  That is a presidential prerogative which cannot be whittled away at the altar of political expediency.
“One commentator has advanced the contention that it is the function of the courts, not the president to determine the constitutionality of legislation.  It is the function of the Speaker, not the president, to determine whether a motion or a bill requires Cabinet approval,” he recalled. These assertions are deeply flawed, the attorney argued. He said it is wrong to say that the president, by expressing his opinion, was unconstitutional.
Nandlall asked, “Can it then, in that circumstance be intelligently argued that the president has determined the constitutionality of the bill and therefore has effectively ousted the court’s jurisdiction from ever entertaining a challenge to its constitutionality?”
He clarified that the legal truth is that the court’s jurisdiction to question the constitutionality of bills and actions by the state and its various organs can never be dismantled by the president or any other agency. He said the power resided in the Speaker to determine whether a particular bill requires the recommendation of Cabinet is actually the subject of an article in the Constitution, and it relates to a particular type of bill (Article 171).
The Speaker’s power in this regard is not disputed.
“It is the president’s contention, however, that the Speaker fell into error, when he determined that the particular bill under review did not fall into that category of bills which requires the recommendation of Cabinet as signified by a minister.”
This difference of opinion is clearly permitted.
The clear intendment of Article 170 is to ensure that the executive president of this land is not held to ransom or captive by the National Assembly, and it is to be interpreted to prevent such an eventuality, so that there will be at all times due equilibrium between the two constituent components which comprise of that unitary whole called Parliament. “Any other interpretation will certainly result in a constitutional crisis.”