By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

AMIDST heated debate about the validity of the gambling referendum, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson claims it is an attempt to deepen democracy and is no different from the one held a decade ago.

However, Democratic National Alliance leader Branville McCartney disagrees that the upcoming referendum is a legal one, and could be considered to not only be a waste of time and money, but  “undemocractic and deceptive.”

Speaking about the apparent “misconception” surrounding the entire referendum, Mrs Maynard-Gibson said in a statement to the press that the “process by which the Referendum will be held and the legislation that defines the process are valid and subsisting.”

“It is the same process that was used in 2001 when a Referendum was held under the Constitutional Referendum Act. The legislation under which this non constitutional Referendum is to be held is the Referendum Act,” the legal affairs minister said.

Criticism surrounding the use of the word “regularization” is misconceived. The word “regulation” implicitly encompasses “legalization” as the government cannot regulate an unlawful activity. A “yes” vote covers legalization. The referendum questions have been framed as precisely as possible.

“In this regard,” she said,  “the use of the word “regulation” eliminates the need to add the word legalization as the former necessarily encompasses the latter.”

Mr McCartney has a different view and said as much in a statement last weekend when he questioned the reason for having a vote with no binding effect.

“There is no law under the Lotteries and Gaming Act or otherwise that speaks to web-shop gaming and a national lottery,” the former member of parliament said.

“In order to have a legal referendum, there must be a subsisting law for the Bahamian people to consider or there must be a proposed law for consideration. In connection with the questions that are set for the 28th January 2013, we have neither.”

He said  this “process” is not a referendum and will not have a binding effect and questioned why the government lacked the foresight to put in place the proposed legislation in relation to the questions being asked.

The attorney also questioned the purpose for having the vote in seven days if there was no binding effect.

He added that no matter the outcome of the vote, the government has free reign to do what it wants.

“One can consider this voting process a colossal waste of time and money. It can also be considered undemocratic and deceptive,” Mr McCartney said, challenging the government to say otherwise.