Latest update April 23rd, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 19, 2022 News
“…all of that about whether Guyana would be left bankrupt or not will come out during the debate, and the government and the ordinary people would have an opportunity to question and understand that particular issue about the possible economic effects of an oil spill” – Ramon Gaskin
Kaieteur News – Members of civil society are demanding a full debate in the National Assembly on Opposition Member, David Patterson’s Motion which calls for full coverage insurance for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production from ExxonMobil’s subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL).
It was recently revealed that the Speaker of the House, Manzoor Nadir, weakened the Member of Parliament’s (MPs) Motion by removing 13 of the 20 clauses in Patterson’s Motion, while two of the ‘whereas’ clauses were also amended.
In his defense, the Speaker said that the clauses in the Motion must be based on facts and were therefore disallowed.
To this end, Environmental and Human Rights Activist, Ms. Janette Bulkan, Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram, Economist, Ramon Gaskin and Transparency International Guyana (TIGI), are calling for a full debate of the Motion, since they believe that the floor of the National Assembly is where the facts ought to be determined.
For instance, the second clause, in the insurance Motion, which was removed by the Speaker states, “And Whereas worldwide offshore oil production operations show a high likelihood of an oil spill occurring offshore Guyana, and that such likelihood of a spill increases exponentially with the rapid increase in offshore production activities” and the fourth clause read, “And Whereas the emergency response and cleanup of the British Petroleum, Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have so far cost more than $70 billion USD.”
Even though these details have been widely reported on, and are moreover available for verification through quick research, these clauses were removed as the Speaker concluded they must be based on facts.
In this regard, Bulkan in a letter to this publication said she believes that Nadir may be acting outside of his remit by seeking evidence to substantiate the claims made by Patterson in the Motion of full liability coverage, in the event of an oil spill.
The environmental activist in her missive quoted a report produced for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on democracy which highlighted that the executive branch of government is both protected and isolated from outside influence since there is no real ability for the opposition, civil society or the media to penetrate the inner workings of the executive.
“Dispiriting as that observation is, Guyanese citizens still expect the National Assembly to serve as a convening space in which Parliamentarians can discuss matters of national interest, in the interest of transparency and so that there is a public record of at least some aspects of the discussion,” she reasoned.
In fact, Bulkan said that the partisan actions of the Speaker confirm the low assessment of democracy in Guyana. She pointed out that real and present danger of oil spills to the marine life and ecosystems that line not only Guyana’s coast, but those of a huge swathe of Caribbean nations, makes the issue of full insurance coverage urgent and timely.
As a consequence, the environmentalist called for a full debate on the issue. Bulkan was keen to note that former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran, who served between 2001 and 2011, on 27 March 2008, clearly outlined that a Member can challenge the Speaker by way of a motion – ‘Where a Member is dissatisfied with a decision of the Speaker approving a motion.’
“Then Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran, ended his Statement by saying, ‘Let me hasten to add that decisions of all public officials, including the Speaker, are subject to critical review by the press and public’… I call on: MP David Patterson to present a procedural motion to allow a full debate on the issues raised in his motion gutted with little explanation by the Speaker, the Speaker to allow all the clauses of MP Patterson’s Motion ‘full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production’ to be debated in our National Assembly,” the activist said.
On the other hand, Economist Ramon Gaskin contended that the Speaker is completely out of order and should be replaced.
He argued, “He is not behaving as an impartial Speaker. He is not a PPP Speaker. He is in charge of the business of the National Assembly and he needs to conduct himself impartially and he is not doing that.”
Gaskin told this publication that Nadir should allow a full debate on the Motion and further noted that he should not make omissions to the document.
“He is totally out of order by calling on the people who are moving the Motion to provide evidence about all of that. All of that about whether Guyana would be left bankrupt or not will come out during the debate and the government and the ordinary people would have an opportunity to debate and understand that particular issue about the possible economic effects of an oil spill,” the Economist reasoned.
He went on to explain that the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between Guyana and the oil company allows the Minister of Natural Resources to foot the expenses associated with a cleanup and then forward same to the oil major, ExxonMobil. However it is his view that such an occurrence can cost Guyana billions.
In addition to this, Gaskin said “the Minister has no capability or capacity, technical or otherwise, to deal with no spill so it is a matter that ought to be debated properly in the National Assembly”.
Moreover, the Economist explained, “In the first agreement, the 1999 agreement which was signed by Janet Jagan when she was President, she allowed Exxon to have its own ‘self-insurance’ on the question of a spill, this means that if the government or the people of Guyana had to make a claim against Exxon they would have to go to Exxon…the one which was signed by Trotman himself is not a great improvement on that. We still don’t have proper guarantees on who is going to fix it, who is going to clean up the environment and who is going to pay for it. That is not clear and that is why we need a full debate in the National Assembly and the Speaker should not interfere in it or the text of it, but rather allow for a full debate.”
Similarly, Christopher Ram argued that Patterson as an elected Member of Parliament should be allowed to present his ‘unrestricted’ Motion to Parliament.
He said, “This is an elected Member of Parliament. Parliament is the forum for debates and here we have an unelected person seeking to restrict that debate. The purpose of Parliament should be to expand and the purpose of the Speaker should be to facilitate and not to restrict any debate, notwithstanding any standing orders or anything like that.”
Guyana’s transparency advocates also joined in the call for a full debate of the Motion.
TIGI President, Mr. Collin Fredericks in an invited comment told this publication that while the agency is not an expert in Parliamentary procedures, it believes that the Parliament of any country has a duty to be concerned about the delivery and fairness of justice.
“We believe that it is the government that has the resources to establish whether the claim is correct or not. We do not know enough about parliamentary procedures to determine whether Mr. Patterson or the opposition would be expected to mount a thorough investigation and research to support his claim…every which way we look at the Speaker’s request it does not make sense,” the President added.
THE INSURANCE MOTION
The Motion on full liability insurance coverage was submitted by Patterson to Parliament on February 16, 2022.
The Speaker in a written response to the Member of Parliament (MP), dated February 28, 2022, informed that 13 of the 20 clauses in Patterson’s Motion have been disallowed, while two of the ‘whereas’ clauses were also amended.
On the other hand, the Speaker also suggested that Patterson reword one of his clauses as the information included was “inaccurate”.
The Speaker’s response was sent by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs. In the document seen by Kaieteur News, Isaacs particularly stated that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th ‘whereas’ clauses were removed.
With regard to the clauses amended by the Speaker, this newspaper understands that the sixth and seventh clauses have been adjusted, although the Speaker said it was the “fifth and sixth clauses”.
The document from the Clerk of the National Assembly detailed, “Further, the Speaker has amended the 5th ‘And Whereas Clause’ by deleting the words, ‘and economic bankruptcy’. He has approved the other part of the clause.”
However, it was Patterson’s clause six, which sought to highlight and discuss the potential financial impact an oil spill can have on Guyana, by specifically describing the effects as leaving the country in economic bankruptcy.
According to clause six, “…a major oil spill offshore Guyana would result in the environmental devastation of Guyana and its neighboursing countries, obliteration of the areas fishing industry, aquatic vegetation, and economic bankruptcy, including possible lawsuits from neighbouring countries.”
:
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 23, 2024
Kaieteur Sports – Over the weekend, the prestigious Lusignan Golf Club played host to the highly anticipated AMCHAM Golf Tournament, drawing golf enthusiasts and professionals alike from across...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]