Opposition Leader deems AG’s move to court legally misconceived

Dec 19, 2012 News

Rohee no confidence motion…

Opposition Leader David Granger has described as legally misconceived, the Attorney’s General’s move to the court for a determination of the matter regarding the temporary gagging of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee by Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman.
Granger, who along with Trotman, was named as a respondent in the matter filed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, has filed a counter summons in the High Court seeking to strike out the orders being sought by Nandlall.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall

In a summons filed yesterday, Granger is seeking an order, staying all proceedings filed by the Attorney General until the hearing and determination of his summons.
The whole issue stems from Granger filing a no confidence motion in the National Assembly against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, which was subsequently committed to the Privileges Committee by Speaker Trotman.
That move has effectively seen the Home Affairs Minister being temporarily prohibited from speaking as a Minister in the National Assembly until the determination of the matter.
The Attorney General, who is seeking to overturn the Speaker’s decision, filed a motion filed in the High Court on November 27, which replaced a previous application that was withdrawn, asking for a declaration that the decision of the Speaker to commit Granger’s no confidence motion to the Privileges Committee, and prohibiting Rohee from speaking or not recognizing him for the purpose of presenting bills, making other representations in the house, is unlawful, in excess and without jurisdiction.
Nandlall is also seeking a declaration that the Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine the issue.
However, Granger in his affidavit in support of his summons stated that the declarations and orders sought by the Attorney General are without merit and are misconceived. He noted that the decision of the Speaker to send the matter to the Privileges Committee was an internal proceeding of the National Assembly.

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman

The Opposition Leader argued that the court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of internal proceedings of the National Assembly where there has been no breach of the constitution.
He said that Nandlall’s affidavit in support of his motion contains no allegation of fact capable of supporting a finding of constitutional breach by any of the respondents or by the National Assembly.
“I am further advised by my counsel…and verily believe that alleged irregularities in the conduct of parliamentary business are a matter for parliament, not the courts,” Granger stated.
He further argued that the Speaker’s decision to commit the no confidence motion to the Privileges Committee is not in itself unlawful.
“My (no confidence) motion only seeks to prevent the Minister of Home Affairs, Clement James Rohee, from speaking in the National Assembly, so long as he is purporting to carry out the functions of Minister of Home Affairs as published in the Official Gazette. Minister Rohee is free to speak in the National Assembly in any other capacity,” the Opposition Leader said.
He argued that Members of Parliament had “no constitutional right” to speak during debates; that right to speak was governed by the Standing Orders and any failure to comply with it did not invalidate the proceedings and could not be inquired into by the courts.
According to Granger, the Home Affairs Minister has not been silenced completely, but is only limited as a result of the

Opposition Leader David Granger

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee

resolution of the National Assembly expressing no confidence in him as Minister of Home Affairs.
Granger said that the Attorney General’s move is an abuse of the process of the court and is a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers “thus the court has no jurisdiction into this matter.”