At a press conference on September 14, President Ali disclosed that he had invited all members of the parliamentary sectoral committees on Economic Services and Foreign Relations to meet with him on September 15 and 16 respectively. The invitations had been dispatched on September 10.
Both of these committees are chaired by MPs from We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) whose leader Azruddin Mohamed is also the Leader of the Opposition and whose relations with the President are, to say the least, acrimonious. WIN discerned that President Ali was attempting to bypass Mr Mohamed and declined to attend the meeting. APNU complained that there was no agenda and wanted assurances that this was not a decorative meeting. In the end APNU did not attend and the President was left to desultory meetings with only the governing MPs.
While MPs should not lightly reject a meeting with the President, any objective assessment of Mr Ali’s outlook towards Parliament and the Opposition would find that there is a clear intention to undermine both.
Despite the fact that General and Regional Elections were held on September 1st last year, President Ali did not issue a proclamation for the convening of the 13th Parliament until October 23rd and November 3rd, the latest date possible, was the day set for the first sitting. No election of the Leader of the Opposition was convened by the Speaker until January 26 this year. In the interim, the President slighted Parliament by delivering what should have been his maiden speech to the National Assembly to a large gathering in the forecourt of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre.
It is therefore no surprise that Mr Ali’s overture was rejected by the opposition particularly in the context where Presidents have not been known to meet these parliamentary sectoral committees and indeed these committees have not distinguished themselves in the world of work.
At least, the President has drawn some attention to these committees and their work. How seriously the government takes these committees will be evident at the end of the parliamentary recess. With a new opposition party in charge of two of the committees and significantly represented on the other two there is an opportunity for greater activism and to do the real work expected of them.
The parliamentary sectoral committees on economic services, social services, natural resources and foreign relations can address a wide gamut of crucial matters if they are properly funded and assisted by parliament office.
The foreign relations committee could undertake tours to the outermost communities in western Guyana to understand their concerns about Venezuela, migration and the sindicatos. This requires financial allocations and some energy to organize. The committee on social services could take on the mandate to seek out all schools that were still employing latrines and to bring that to an end in an economy that could afford it.
The Natural Resources Committee could summon Exxon, Chevron and CNOOC to test their positions on a possible renegotiation of the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement. This could be a tough ask as this committee is chaired by the Natural Resources Minister and there has been resistance in previous parliaments as it relates to the powers to summon foreign companies.
The Economic Services Committee could address the question of the cost of living and visit communities all across to the country to inform debate prior to the next budget presentation.
For any of this to happen, the opposition members of these committees have to get busy and to press for every single opportunity. Where this is interfered with they must make a scene and draw it to the attention of the international community.
On June 15 this year when it released the list of the various committees and their members, Parliament Office said: “Parliamentary committees play a vital role in the parliamentary process by examining matters referred to them by the National Assembly, scrutinising the work of Government agencies and ministries, reviewing legislation, and facilitating greater public accountability and transparency”.
This was a very enlightening interpretation of what these committees are intended to achieve and it will soon be known if that is just lip service or a serious attempt to give full meaning to the work of the committees.
Discussion