Gov’t loses court battle over Parliament committees

May 03, 2012 News

---

 

Chief Justice says AG complained to the wrong place

The government yesterday lost its court battle on the composition of Parliamentary Committees.

Chief Justice Ian Chang dismissed the government’s case, saying that Attorney General Anil 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.
The government was highly 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 held control of the Parliament, it had five seats on the committee. However, following the November 28 polls, which gave the opposition a majority in the National Assembly, the PPP’s seats were reduced to four by an opposition vote.
As a result, an equal four seats each were voted for the governing PPP and the major opposition APNU. The AFC, the other opposition party, has one seat.
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 equal 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.”
Because of ‘the public interest nature’ of the matter, Chang said that he did not see it fit to award “a high level of costs” to the respondents.
The government has to pay the Opposition Leader $75,000 and the Speaker $40,000. The difference in the award of the court has to do with the fact that Granger was represented by a Senior Counsel.
Mr Granger was represented by Senior Counsel Rex McKay in association with Mr Joseph Harmon, Mr Robert Corbin, Mr F.L. Peters, Mrs Abiola Wong-Innis, Mrs Bertina Glasford and Mr Basil Williams.
The Speaker was represented by Mr Nigel Hughes in association with Mr Khemraj Ramjattan and Mr Christopher Ram.
Under Standing Order 80 of the National Assembly, a number of “Standing Committees” have to be set up.
These committees are the Committee of Selection, the Public Accounts Committee, the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform, the Committee of Appointments, the Parliamentary Management Committee, the Sectoral Committees specified in Standing Order 86 and the Parliamentary Oversight Committee on the Security Sector.
The Parliamentary Standing Orders state that the Committee of Selection, which nominates the members for the other committees, shall consist of between six and 10 members.
It is the number nine that led to the court challenge.
The Attorney General had claimed that the National Assembly, with an opposition vote, acted unconstitutionally on February 10, 2012 in fixing the numerical strength of the Committee of Selection at nine.
The current committee is made up of PPP members Samuel Hinds, Dr Leslie Ramsammy, Indranie Chandarpal and Gail Teixeira, while APNU members are Amna Ally, Volda Lawrence, George Norton and Joseph Harmon. The AFC is represented by Khemraj Ramjattan.
The opposition has argued the Committee of Selection to comply with every section of the Standing Orders of the Parliament which is in consonance with the Constitution of Guyana.
Standing Order 94 (1) states: “Every select committee shall be constituted as to ensure, as far as possible, that the balance of parties in the Assembly is reflected in the committee.”

---

---