Law by ambush

ATTORNEY General Reginald Armour, SC, this week waxed lyrical.

“Cricket, lovely cricket,” Mr Armour said on April 30 to a group gathered to hear him.

He was not reciting a poem at the Bocas Lit Fest. He was piloting legislation in the Senate to facilitate the co-hosting of the ICC T20 Cricket World Cup 2024.

But when a lawyer appeals to sentimentality, there is always a reason.

Mr Armour felt it necessary to tug at heartstrings because the 48-clause bill had been brought by the Government for debate with shockingly little warning.

“Permit me to offer something in the nature of an apology by way of explanation to honourable senators for the regrettably short notice in bringing this omnibus piece of legislation,” he said loquaciously.

Mr Armour further said six Caricom countries were co-ordinating “around the clock” to harmonise laws to allow the tournament to happen, and praised people working behind the scenes, including those engaged in “many long days and nights” to meet short deadlines.

It would be lovely if the AG’s apology, and the subsequent approval of the bill without objection (UNC senators abstained), constituted a rare moment of bonhomie.

The reality is, however, that what took place was not an isolated incident.

It was not the first time that highly consequential matters were foisted on legislators at the last minute. In fact, this week’s apology was a repeat of history.

A similar expression of regret was issued to beleaguered senators in 2006 when the government of the day brought, at a late hour, legislation to facilitate the next year’s ICC Cricket World Cup.

“I sincerely apologise to honourable senators,” said Minister of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs Joan Yuille-Williams on the final day of October.

The deadline for passing the law was the very next day.

More recently, some MPs last week grumbled about having no notice of matters the Government pursued after the end of private members’ day, matters involving complicated constitutional questions and sensitive offices.

And it is now normal, on the eve of some high-stakes deadline relating to an international body, for debates on legislation relating to things like FATCA to be rushed.

We acknowledge emergencies come up.There is a good reason why the rules allow governments to do as they see fit with whatever degree of notice they like.

But why have we spent hundreds of millions to restore the Red House? What is the purpose of the phalanx of parliamentary committees?

Legislators are there to scrutinise laws.

The practice of waiting until the last hour or debating on short notice not only frustrates them, but it also forestalls wider discussion among civil society.

It is akin to throwing everybody a no-ball.

Or is Parliament a rubber stamp?