Govt to ask Appeal Court to review Chief Justice ruling

May 22, 2012 News

---

 

 

By Gary Eleazar

The Government’s Legal Advisor and Guyana’s Attorney General, Anil Nandlall disagrees with the

recent ruling by Chief Justice Ian Chang on the composition of the Parliament’s Committee of Selection.
As such the Attorney General says that this week the government will be filing an appeal to Chang’s ruling that the High Court had no business interfering in the internal workings of Parliament.
Chief Justice Chang had ruled that Nandlall had been complaining to the wrong place about the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection.
This body is essentially an umbrella body for the various Parliamentary Committees as it relates to their composition upon reconstitution of the committees as the 10th Parliament gets down to work.
Chief Justice Ian Chang dismissed the government’s case, saying that Nandlall made his complaint to the wrong forum and that the court cannot inquire or interfere in the proceedings of the National Assembly.
“The forum for a complaint of this nature is the National Assembly,” Chang said in a 30-page decision.
The Chief Justice ruled that there was nothing constitutionally wrong about opposition parties moving to change the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection from having ten members compared to government having nine members.
Nandlall is convinced that the government has a strong case. There are at least two interpretations of the relevant legislation under question, he added.
He says that the Chief Justice chose one interpretation and he is looking to move to a more superior court in a bid to convince the Judges there that the alternative decision is correct.
Asked if that bid fails, whether the Caribbean Court of Justice will be the next avenue, Nandlall said, “We will cross that bridge when we get to it.”
Following the opening of the 10th Parliament the combined Opposition, using its one-seat majority and by way of a parliamentary motion, reduced the number of persons to sit on the committee to nine.
The Motion which was approved by the Parliamentary Majority meant that on the committee the Governing Peoples Progressive party Civic would hold four Seats; A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) would hold four; and the Alliance for Change would hold one seat.
The Opposition argues that this would reflect the composition of the Full House where the Parliamentary Opposition holds the majority on the Committee.
The government was annoyed that the opposition, which has controlling power in the National Assembly, moved to give it one seat less on the committee of selection. This committee is responsible for nominating all other committees of the Parliament.
When the ruling PPP/C held control of the Parliament, it had five seats on the Committee.

Unable to convince the opposition, the government, through the Attorney General, moved to the court, insisting that the composition of the committee should remain the same as it was prior to the November 28 polls.
In his arguments, the Attorney General said that the PPP and APNU could not have an equal number of seats based on a system of proportionality.
Nandlall argued that the composition of the Committee of Selection is “violative” of the principle of proportionality as contemplated by the Constitution since in this configuration; the PPP/C with 32 seats has the same representation on the Committee with APNU which only secured 26 seats.
The government wanted the court to issue an order setting aside, revoking, cancelling or annulling the composition of the said Committee of Selection on the grounds that it is” violative” of Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana and in breach of the provisions of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000.
Opposition Leader David Granger and Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, were named as respondents in the case.
In his ruling, the Chief Justice said that he was unable to read into the provisions of the constitution a mandate that the composition of the Parliamentary committees, particularly the Committee of Selection, must reflect proportionately the number of seats allocated to the successful political parties in the National Assembly.
Chang held that the challenge by the Attorney General was “legally misconceived” and there was nothing in his arguments that could support his claim that there was a constitutional breach by the Speaker or the Opposition Leader.
“That being so, the court has no further jurisdiction to inquire into this matter,” Chang ruled, adding that “to do would be to inquire into the internal proceedings of the National Assembly, which the court has no jurisdiction to do.”

---

---