Senior Counsel Martin Daly has said it was wrong for President Anthony Carmona to suggest that in every bill to be assented there is always need for “cause for pause.” Daly made the comment on a radio programme yesterday, as he made reference to a press release issued last week by Carmona in relation to the controversial SSA Amendment Bill which was recently assented.
“In every Bill to be assented, there is always a need or cause for pause. The assenting to Bills can neither be pre-emptive or instanter, often dependent upon His Excellency’s consultation and receipt of legal advice. Accordingly, assenting to Bills of this Republic, will continue to be for His Excellency the President, a process of constitutional and legal reflection, analysis and determination vis-a-vis his duties and responsibilities pursuant to section 61(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Section 61(2) states: “When a Bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify that he assents or withholds his assent,” Carmona had said.
But yesterday, Daly said there must never be the case where the President questions the work and will of the Parliament.
“That is wrong. That can’t be the norm. There may be exceptional cases in which he (the President) may want to suggest a modest delay while any points he raises are considered.
“But the idea that he can go out and get a better opinion than the Parliament...all of that is quite wrong and he is misdirecting himself because it can’t be in every case,” Daly said. He added that the controversial Section 34 matter was an example of an exceptional case where there was a lot of concern that the aspect of immunity had slipped in.
“In a case like that, the President may have a brief cause for pause and ask the executive to explain how it got slipped in at the eleventh hour and after that he has to assent,” Daly said.
“So the idea that in every case he must canvas opinions...he can’t get some legal opinion that overrides the will of Parliament. All of that is anti-democratic,” Daly maintained, adding that the President did not have such discretion under the Constitution.
Daly said it was critical that the office of the President operate strictly according to the Constitution.
Also contacted yesterday on the issue, former attorney general Ramesh Maharaj said while the President was obligated to assent a bill, he also has the power to offer counsel to both the Government and the Opposition from time to time.
“Although he may not have legal power to prevent assenting of a bill he has the duty and the power to counsel the parties if he sees things are not right in a particular measure. He can ask them, he can try to persuade them but he cannot compel the Government or the Parliament not to want to proceed with the assent of the bill,” Maharaj said in a telephone interview.
“And in a controversial bill such as this, the Head of State can try to counsel the Prime Minister and Opposition leader and to see whether there can be consensus.”
He said there have been instances where previous presidents had delayed the assent of a bill. He made reference to former President Arthur NR Robinson, who had refused to accept recommendations for the appointment of government senators when Basdeo Panday was prime minister.
Robinson had delayed the appointments for a period of time to seek advice, but ultimately gave in.
“The President does not have the power to prevent a bill which was passed by Parliament to be assented, because under the Constitution the President acts on the advice in those matters on the recommendation of the Cabinet,” Maharaj said.
But he said the signing of a bill was not automatically done by the President, as it must be properly read.
“There will always be a pause because the President ought to read the bill before signing it. There are advantages in the President pausing, but the pause cannot be to the extent to undermine and subvert the will of the Parliament,” Maharaj said.
Time to make proper laws
On the issue of 13 people charged with being gang members in the Dana Seetahal murder inquiry being freed of those charges recently, Daly said this opened another can of worms which needed to be examined.
“Why is it that we pass bad legislation and why is it we have these disasters?
“The whole way we go about passing laws with ridiculous deadlines, some of which are self-imposed and some of which are imposed by international agencies...we simply can’t make good laws under those conditions,” he said.
On this country’s poor murder detection rate, Daly said key systems must be examined, adding it was a shame the Forensic Science Centre in St James was staffed with just one forensic pathologist.
“Every so often, the pathologist’s contract runs out and then there is a big outcry over what is going to happen to all the pending cases.
“And then you have to rehire the same person.
“We have been making the same mistakes over and over again. You have to examine why the system is failing,” Daly said.