On Monday evening the Alliance For Change issues a statement that it is disturbed at the manner in which the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly earlier the said day approved the appointment of Directors of the Audit Office, including that of Mrs. Geetanjalee Singh. The approval was given in the absence of the AFC representative to the PAC, Trevor Williams, who unfortunately, was delayed travelling on the Essequibo River.
In the statement, the AFC said it believes that a matter as important as this, with constitutional and ethical implications ought not to have been the subject of a PAC vote as engineered by the PPP representative in the absence of the full committee of the PAC.
This is tantamount to a sleight of hand especially in the context of the previous meeting when the AFC member asked for an adjournment to be given time for the Committee to be better advised on conflict of interest and the qualifications of the Acting Auditor General, Mr. Deodat Sharma.
The AFC, additionally, wishes to point out that the process which transpired in the Committee Room of the PAC on 25th June 2012 was riddled with mis-advise, which then realized an improper approval. The AFC has learnt that pressure was brought to bear by the four PPP members, and especially Ms. Gail Texeira, on the four APNU members that the Chairman, Mr. Carl Greenidge did not have an original vote. There is every indication that the Clerk to the Committee meekly submitted too. That Mr. Greenidge was not allowed to vote was as demeaning as the advise was erroneous.
The AFC wishes to advise that the Public Accounts Committee is a Standing Committee of Parliament and not a Select Committee. The PAC was created by Standing Order 80, and by Rule 5 thereof every member of this Committee “shall have the right to vote therein.” Indeed, there is a proviso stating unless the vote is otherwise taken away by these Standing Orders. Nowhere in the Standing orders is this original vote of each and every member of the PAC, and hence Mr. Greenidge’s, taken away!
The mischief however was done by PPP members misapplying a Rule which is applicable only to Select Committees, namely, Standing Order 102 Rule (3) which indeed provides for no original vote for the Chairperson, but gives him a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes. The Select Committees which this Rule applies to include the Standing Orders Committee, Committee of Privileges, Statutory Instruments, Assembly Committee , and those Special Select Committees set up under Standing Order 93.
This Rule disentitling the Chairperson of Select Committes, has no application to Standing Committees which are a distinct and separate committees. Standing Committees include the Committee of Selection, the Public Accounts, Committee of Appointments, Parliamentary Management and the Sectoral Committees.
The limited application of SO 102 can be discerned by its actual title and words: “Divisions in Select Committees”. It never said Standing Committees. This misapplication of the law and norms by the PPP members to squeeze an advantage, the AFC sees happening elsewhere, even our High Court.
What this means is that the members of the PAC and moreover its Chairperson, acted upon a mistake if not a blatant misrepresentation, and thus got misled; which ought to thus vitiate the decision of the PAC . Its 4/3 vote on the appointments of managers and Directors were thus not proper, nor legitimate nor valid. It should be recalled and the matter wholly reviewed. [END]
Comments are closed