National Assembly wrong to gag Rohee - Chief Justice

National Assembly wrong to gag Rohee – Chief Justice

Mar 02, 2013 News

Chief Justice ag) Ian Chang

Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, in handing down his decision yesterday, ruled that the National Assembly, not being Parliament, cannot through any Bill or Motion be empowered to negate the powers of any member of the National Assembly.
The CJ also ruled that whenever the Court’s jurisdiction is invoked on any issue, the Court’s decision is final and binding.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall had filed a Motion in the High Court on behalf of the Government of Guyana, to nullify the No-Confidence Motion moved in the National Assembly on July 25, 2012 by Opposition Leader David Granger and passed by the House on July 30, 2012.
The No-Confidence Motion was brought against Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee after the death of three protestors in the mining town of Linden on July 18, 2012. The protest took place when residents objected to the hike in electricity tariff in Region Ten. The events took a turn for the worse when three men were killed and others injured.
Government had said it would not remove the Minister from office, until the findings and report of a Commission of Inquiry empanelled to investigate the events of that day. That report was submitted to the Head of State on Thursday and its findings exonerate the Minister.
Ruling that the Motion filed by the Leader of the Opposition, was misconceived and unconstitutional, the Chief Justice stated that the convention which applies in England in relation to Ministerial responsibility and resignation when a No-Confidence Motion is passed against a Minister, has no place in Guyana’s political architecture.
He has ruled that the Motion which was passed to repose that Motion of No-Confidence in the Minister and the consequent sanctions which followed, that is, the imposition of that prohibition which prevents the Minister from speaking, is wholly wrong, unconstitutional and outside the power of the National Assembly.
The CJ also outlined the distinction between the role of Parliament to regulate its own procedure, and the role of the Court in relation to Parliament.
A Partnership for National Unity Member of Parliament and legal representative Basil Williams, while conceding that the CJ’s final ruling has endorsed the preliminary decision, said that some issues were clarified.
“He (the CJ) has also crystallised, the relationship between the power of the Parliament and the Court, and has reaffirmed that the Court is the only and final authority to determine issues of law and issues emanating from the Constitution, not the Speaker.
The Speaker cannot deal with matters of the Constitution or matters of law. Even if he deals with it, he is not the final decision maker in this respect, that jurisdiction resides with the Court,” Williams declared. (GINA)