Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 03, 2022 News
Kaieteur News – The Opposition’s proposed amendments to the Local Content Bill before it was passed into law, which was purportedly ignored by the Government, were rejected on the grounds that they are in direct contradiction of constitutional provisions.
Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, explained in a letter to the editor on Saturday, that while contentions are being raised over the proposal to amend, the government had taken into account that the suggested adjustments would have run “afoul,” of the constitution.
The AG was at the time responding to Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) and former Minister of Public Works, David Patterson. Patterson pointed to some recommendations which he said the government ignored before the Local Content Bill of 2021 was made into law.
Patterson claimed that the government overlooked some key issues raised. These, he said, included the need for amendment to the Citizen’s Act and New Immigration Policy which would have strengthened the legal and regulatory stipulations for local content.
Patterson’s remarks were made in the face of contentions raised by Ramps Logistics Guyana which had been denied a local content certificate.
Ramps Logistics Guyana Inc. has complained that it was denied a local content certificate even though the company is 51 percent Guyanese owned.
The company noted that 51 percent is held by its Chairman Trinidad-born Deepak Lall, who has strong connections to Guyana through his patriarchal family. Lall was granted citizenship in Guyana just after three months of applying.
Patterson contended that the issue raised by Ramps could have been avoided had the government heeded the calls for amendments.
The AG has a different point of view. He shared that the amendments advocated for by Patterson and team is not in keeping with the Constitution– Guyana’s supreme law.
The AG asserted that “…Patterson is obviously unaware that our supreme law defines who is or isn’t qualified to be registered as a citizen of Guyana. Any law which purports to restrict or is inconsistent with that definition will run afoul of the Constitution and shall be void to the extent of that inconsistency.”
Nandlall cited Article 8 of the Constitution: “…is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
He noted that while Patterson raised an issue with the timeframe in which the Ramps official was granted citizenship, “By his heritage, Mr. Lall is a Guyanese citizen from birth.
He simply had to register that citizenship with the relevant authority.”
Article 44 of the Constitution, Nandlall said, states that “A person born outside Guyana after the commencement of this Constitution shall become a citizen of Guyana at the date of his or her birth if at that date his or her father or his or her mother is a citizen of Guyana…”
Further, the AG noted that Article 149 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination.
He continued, “Article 149 (1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, “Subject to the provisions of this article – (a) no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect; and (b) no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority.”
In the circumstances, Nandlall said were the GoG to adopt Mr. Patterson’s proposals, the Local Content Act would have been in violent tension and conflict with the Constitution.
“The new immigration policy for which Mr. Patterson advocates would suffer a similar fate,” he added.
Moreover, the Attorney General underscored that Patterson refused to acknowledge that only the night before the Local Content Bill was tabled in the National Assembly, the APNU+AFC submitted 14 proposed amendments to the Bill of which 10 were accepted by the Government, and included in the Bill.
In addition, Nandlall stressed that while Patterson next criticises the Act for not providing a right of appeal in respect of any application rejected, the GoG’s intent was to avoid administrative bureaucracy as far as possible.
According to Nandlall, the right to appeal is made under the provisions of the Judicial Review Act.
He said under section three of the Judicial Review Act, Cap. 3:06, any person who is adversely affected by an administrative act or omission of anybody which affects public law rights, obligations or expectations may apply to the court for judicial review.
Further, the AG under section 15 of the Act, a person adversely affected by an administrative decision may request reasons for that decision and must be provided with those reasons if that request was made within 14 days of the decision.
He added, “Therefore, there was no need to burden the Local Content Act with such an unusual bureaucracy specifically dealt with by the Judicial Review Act.”
As fate would have it, the AG said, “this is the very Act, under which the lawyers for the company relied in their request for reasons regarding the rejection of their application.”
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... 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]