ON the latest instalment of ‘Issues in the News,’ the Attorney General gave his legal opinion on APNU’s proposed amendments to the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act. The AG quite succinctly engaged the public in a genuine interpretation of why the proposed amendments will not be successful at this time. The AG’s explanation was respectful, engaging and provided a solid understanding of all the main issues from the AG’s perspective.
Given the general gait of the weekly monologue, it would be reasonable to assume that the AG has essentially outlined the government’s position on these matters.
For those who are not up to scratch, I will attempt to summarise. The Natural Resource Fund Act was originally passed and assented to in 2019 by President Granger, after he suffered defeat in the No-Confidence Vote (NCV) of 2018. At that time, the PPP had signalled its non-co-operation and vowed to repeal any Act passed after the NCV if it returned to government after the impending elections. Besides, the PPP criticised many aspects as being unenforceable, platitudinal and cumbersome. After coming to power the PPP used its majority in-house to promptly repeal and replace the Act.
During the actual vote on the Bill, pandemonium broke out in the National Assembly. APNU+AFC members of the house performed a grab-and-run with the mace. They subsequently brought a court case that argued that the passage of the Bill was unconstitutional and not validly passed because the mace was not on its designated mount at the time of the final vote.
The case was thrown out.
The very law grants the opposition a member on the investment committee of the NRF. APNU+AFC appointed Dr Terrence Campbell. Since his appointment, we heard one gripe after another. He displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and a graver misunderstanding of his role on the NRF Investment Committee.
Campbell is behaving as though he had a special fiat to decide the quantum and manner of deposits and withdrawals from the fund. His role was simply to contribute to searching the globe for safe, transparent and lucrative investment opportunities and tender said advice to the Government of Guyana on the best avenues for investing a portion of the oil revenues to bear dividends for the future.
Campbell opined that the deposits to the NRF must be accounted for as individual cost centres and should not provide lumpsum support to the national budget and more specifically, should not be used to support current- account expenditures. Essentially, his claim is, to the extent that the Act does not confirm this prescription, it would be unconstitutional. As a result, prior to becoming an MP, he filed a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, seeking several declarations along those lines.
Since becoming MP, Campbell has filed proposed amendments to the NRF of 2021. The amendments seek to provide the very remedies for the self-same matters that are the subjects of the case before the court. In fact, the matter before parliament appears to be an exact photocopy of those matters before the court. This prompted the AG to cite Standing Order 41(2) and opined that, “The National Assembly cannot proceed to debate or deal with a matter if that matter is sub judice — meaning it is pending before the court. That rule is one grounded in the doctrine of the separation of powers … It is at the discretion of the Speaker to determine whether a matter is sub judice, but Speakers have consistently upheld this principle without exception over the years.”
Campbell used his Facebook page to fire back at the AG. Campbell’s response can easily be described as a dimwitted, inelegant and a complete embarrassment to anyone seeking an intelligent engagement on the issues. Instead, he did not engage the AG in a similar, respectful manner, rebut the AG point for point or outline in similar, deliberate, succinct terms how his amendments are designed to benefit Guyanese.
Campbell also had the option to deflect; he could’ve preemptively spun the issues surrounding an impending adverse Speaker’s ruling.
To my utter astonishment, Campbell replied to the AG by quoting a google summary paragraph which has nothing to do with the specifics in Guyana. He then went on to call the AG a “dunce,” then subsequently boast about how many books he bought at a “princely sum” before casting himself as better than others because he has superior academic certificates.
Campbell seems unable to grasp that our standing orders dictate that he only has to satisfy the Speaker that the amendments and intended debate will not be sub judice. Campbell has done little to help the public understand the real issues at hand. All we heard from him so far are the “sounding brass and twinkling cymbals” of haughtiness, conceit and narcissism.
The Campbell method is the very approach to politics that resulted in a catastrophic devastation at the 2025 elections. This approach is designed to appeal to a small,captive section of the dwindling base and cannot win a single new support.
As APNU’s lead in Parliament, Campbell must decide who he is speaking for and if he is the leader for a superficial ‘dirty dozen’ or a methodical dodecad. The trajectory of Campbell’s public engagement since being announced as a candidate and subsequently as parliamentary lead is laden with shallow, dirty name calling. This will lead to political damnation; the PNC runs the real risk of whittling, which could result in a loss of critical mass. Their leadership crisis deepens; Campbell is not a viable alternative nor a break from the troubles that plagued Norton. The PNC is in for some tough times ahead.