Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

THE CHAIRING OF CABINET

July 4, 2015 | By | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

 

Article 106 (3) is mandatory, not permissive. It provides that the President shall chair Cabinet. It also provides what should happen should the President be absent. In that instance, the Cabinet shall be chaired by the Prime Minister. In the absence of both, the Cabinet shall be chaired by someone designated by the President.


When Forbes Burnham was undergoing his medical treatment at the Georgetown Hospital, on that very day there was a Cabinet Meeting. It was chaired by the then Prime Minister, Desmond Hoyte.


The constitutional position is quite precise. The President, once present, has to chair Cabinet. Only if he is not present can it be chaired by someone else.


Article 99 of the Constitution has no application in this instance because Article 103 is not a general provision; it is specific and mandatory provision. The President of Guyana is therefore correct in his assertion that to have anyone chair Cabinet in his presence would be unconstitutional.


But back to Article 99 which deals with the vesting and exercise of Executive Authority. This article vests executive authority in the President but it does provide for such authority to be exercised directly by him or by his subordinates.


There is some matter of confusion about this article.  I have seen it being interpreted as meaning that the President can delegate executive authority. This is Not so.


Executive authority is vested in the President. It is held exclusively by the President. But the exercise of executive authority may be done by either the President or by others. The exercise of executive authority by someone other than the President does not mean that executive authority has been delegated.


Executive authority cannot be delegated. It is vested in the President. But such authority can be exercised by others, but that exercise is always done in the name of the vesting authority which is the President.


There is a difference between something being delegated and something being exercised by another. The latter can take place without delegated authority.


Parliament for example, in certain circumstances, can make provision for the exercise of such functions. This is not a delegation.


This issue has arisen in commentaries over the non-compliance of the Cummingsburg Accord. Under that agreement, the Prime Minister was supposed to chair Cabinet. Long before the elections, this column had pointed out that this would be unconstitutional.


The signatories of the agreement should have had this flaw remedied. Their failure to recognize the unconstitutionality of the Agreement has now led to a major political crisis.


The Cummingsburg Accord was the basis of providing political comfort to certain constituents that APNU would not act as a juggernaut in the coalition with the AFC.


The support that the AFC brought to the coalition has been rightly assumed to have led to the coalition’s victory and therefore the alleged reneging on the commitments of the Accord is now the subject of great distress.


The chairing of Cabinet is non-negotiable. For the President to allow the Prime Minister to chair Cabinet would be in violation of the Constitution.

 

But what about the other aspects of the Accord such as the one that provides for the Prime Minister to be responsible for domestic affairs.


There is no constitutional impediment to this happening. That this is not happening is deeply troubling and may expose the fragile shell of the coalition, or so some people feel. The greatest adhesive however is political power.


Political power and all that comes with it may be sufficient to hold the coalition together. It may render this issue of control over domestic affairs moot.


But a question still needs to be asked, not just for the record, but for a deeper understanding of this issue. When was it discovered that it would be unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to Chair Cabinet?

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Article 106 (3) is mandatory, not permissive. It provides that the President shall chair Cabinet. It also provides what should happen should the President be absent. In that instance, the Cabinet shall be chaired by the Prime Minister. In the absence of both, the Cabinet shall be chaired by someone designated by the President.

 

The constitutional position is quite precise. The President, once present, has to chair Cabinet. Only if he is not present can it be chaired by someone else.

 

THE CHAIRING OF CABINET, July 4, 2015 | By | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

Remains intact until approved changes to the constitution state otherwise.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
The chairing of Cabinet is non-negotiable. For the President to allow the Prime Minister to chair Cabinet would be in violation of the Constitution.

 

THE CHAIRING OF CABINET, July 4, 2015 | By | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

Gist of the issues.

If the parties to the agreement knew this, they lied to the electorate. If they did not know this prior to the election, then they are not fit to be in power.

Z
Originally Posted by Zed:
 

If the parties to the agreement knew this, they lied to the electorate. If they did not know this prior to the election, then they are not fit to be in power.

AFC Indos are concocting their own interpretation of the agreement.  Under this Moses was given roles to recommend leadership, to handle the DAY TO DAY running of the cabinet.  The agreement set forth that all of his actions were subject to Granger being in agreement.

 

 

It also stated that the AFC was going to get 12 MP slots, which they have received.  They will also consist of 40% of the cabinet, which they have also received.

 

This yapping is basically the babbling of that segment of the Indian population which cannot work with blacks, unless they are in control, and blacks reduced as tokens.  I have seen how this works even within Guyanese organizations in New York.

 

 

At no point was this going to be a co leader operation.  Granger was going to be at the helm, delegating certain functions to the PM.

 

Seriously.  Why do AFC Indos think that a party, which was going to win the vast majority of the votes, and which was almost single handedly running the campaign (given that the AFC has scant human resources), was going to hand over the gov't to people who brought in 5% of the votes (if that).

 

Because what is evident in their wails isn't whether the AFC is being short changed.  It is that they had expectations of an Indo take over, led by Moses, and are now enraged that this didn't happen.

 

The AFC Indos are merely revealing their true PPP nature as they are repeating the same distortion of the Agreement which the PPP is now peddling.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Vish M:

The APNU is citing the constitution as it facilitate them to ignore many aspects of the Accord.

 

  Given that you are a die hard PPP supporter, discuss how the PPP destroyed Civic.  You will recall that the Civic was also supposed to be a cross ethnic alliance aimed at allowing the inclusion of people who weren't traditional PPP supporters.

 

I find it weird that a staunch supporter of the PPP is commenting, when it is clear that such an Accord would NEVER have worked in a PPP dominated regime.

 

You definitely don't want us to discuss how the PPP demoted Sam Hinds, because the notion of an African president appalled them.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Zed:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
The chairing of Cabinet is non-negotiable. For the President to allow the Prime Minister to chair Cabinet would be in violation of the Constitution.

 

THE CHAIRING OF CABINET, July 4, 2015 | By | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

Gist of the issues.

If the parties to the agreement knew this, they lied to the electorate. If they did not know this prior to the election, then they are not fit to be in power.

Perhaps, some prominent and leading members of the AFC were not aware of this item.

 

The PNC surely knew of it and proceeded along, most likely, with the intentions to get rid of most of the AFC before the next election scheduled for 2020.

FM
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Zed:
 

If the parties to the agreement knew this, they lied to the electorate. If they did not know this prior to the election, then they are not fit to be in power.

AFC Indos are concocting their own interpretation of the agreement.  Under this Moses was given roles to recommend leadership, to handle the DAY TO DAY running of the cabinet.  The agreement set forth that all of his actions were subject to Granger being in agreement.

 

 

It also stated that the AFC was going to get 12 MP slots, which they have received.  They will also consist of 40% of the cabinet, which they have also received.

 

This yapping is basically the babbling of that segment of the Indian population which cannot work with blacks, unless they are in control, and blacks reduced as tokens.  I have seen how this works even within Guyanese organizations in New York.

 

 

At no point was this going to be a co leader operation.  Granger was going to be at the helm, delegating certain functions to the PM.

 

Seriously.  Why do AFC Indos think that a party, which was going to win the vast majority of the votes, and which was almost single handedly running the campaign (given that the AFC has scant human resources), was going to hand over the gov't to people who brought in 5% of the votes (if that).

 

Because what is evident in their wails isn't whether the AFC is being short changed.  It is that they had expectations of an Indo take over, led by Moses, and are now enraged that this didn't happen.

 

The AFC Indos are merely revealing their true PPP nature as they are repeating the same distortion of the Agreement which the PPP is now peddling.

Caribny, you did not address my comments but rambled on about the AFC Indians. Not that I agree with you or believe you are correct, but the fact remains that they made an agreement which they said will dictate how things will run under a coalition government and now they are saying that some aspects have to await changes in the constitution. the AFC 'deserves ' what they are getting. It appears that Harmon is more powerful that Moses even though Harmon is a minister and Moses is the Prime Minister. also, was unable to attract voters. With the issue of cabinet numbers. Well, when the photo was taken of the first cabinet meeting, there were more than the cabinet members there, and seem to include the junior ministers. Furthermore, regarding the campIgn, Yes, the AFC was unable to attract many East Indian to the rallies. please publish the agreement so we can determine whether the AFC Indians have been distorting the terms of the agreement.

Z

APNU on its own did not get the seats to form a government.

 

With

 

the AFC, a new government was formed. It might not have been total East Indians that made the difference. However, AFC made the difference-coolie, putage, buck or black, whether black, pink, blue or green. The PPP is gone.

 

The racist and bigots will do wah dem can to see kulie and blackman differences. 

S
Originally Posted by Zed:
 

Caribny, you did not address my comments but rambled on about the AFC Indians. Not that I agree with you or believe you are correct, but the fact remains that they made an agreement which they said will dictate how things will run under a coalition government and now they are saying that some aspects have to await changes in the constitution. the AFC 'deserves ' what they are getting. It appears that Harmon is more powerful that Moses even though Harmon is a minister and Moses is the Prime Minister. also, was unable to attract voters. With the issue of cabinet numbers. Well, when the photo was taken of the first cabinet meeting, there were more than the cabinet members there, and seem to include the junior ministers. Furthermore, regarding the campIgn, Yes, the AFC was unable to attract many East Indian to the rallies. please publish the agreement so we can determine whether the AFC Indians have been distorting the terms of the agreement.

The agreement stated that certain functions would be DELEGATED.  It did NOT state that Nagamootoo would be a co leader.  Delegation means that  overseeing these functions remains the domain of the President.  It merely means that the PM would have day to day supervision.

 

The AFC Indians are screaming that Moses was to have direct unsupervised domain of most of the government, with Granger having control over only external issues.  That is CONTRARY not only to the constitution, but also to the Accord.

 

 

It also makes no political sense.  Why would Granger basically turn over all ministries, with the exception of Foreign Affairs, when he is the president, and therefore ultimately responsible.  In what nation does a president who is the functional, and not titular head, give up all power to another entity?

 

Given that these functions were only DELEGATED, they remain under the responsibility of the president, and so his spokesperson (Harmon) can say what ever he wishes.

 

I suggest that you learn what the term DELEGATION means.

 

The AFC got its 40% and its 12 seats.   ALL else was delegation.

 

 

And based on this 2 AM nonsense from Ramjattan, one can even wonder about those people.

FM
Originally Posted by seignet:

APNU on its own did not get the seats to form a government.

 

 

The AFC got 12 seats that they WOULD NOT have received on their own.  They have 40% of the cabinet, when without APNU, they would not ony have ZERO, but also would NOT even dominate the opposition.

 

This alliance has catapulted the AFC from being a marginal player with a dubious future, given the failure of third parties in Guyana, into a powerful entity, with slots way in excess of the seats that it would have won on its own.

 

It appears as if ingratitude is an Indo AFC trait.   I do not hear any complaints from the rest of the AFC.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Regardless of all the talks, the President of Guyana is the only person with power. Appointments of ministers are done personally by the president, who also can remove any minister at his discretion.

 

Until the constitution is changed to reduce the powers of the president, the only person with the power is the president.

 

Changes to these parts of the constitution require, at least, two-thirds of the MPs. The PNC cum AFC has a tad over 50% of the MPs.

 

If indeed the powers of the president is/was to be reduced, the PNC could have made practical proposals for same when they were in the opposition.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×