Legal arguments commence over Parliamentary status of Ministers

Aug 06, 2015 News

---

By Rehanna Ramsay

Attorney–at–law, Anil Nandlall has commenced arguments in the matter in which PPP member Desmond Morian is seeking to challenge the Parliamentary status of two Ministers of Government.
Morian had a motion filed in the High Court in which he questioned the appointment of APNU+AFC members Winston Felix and Keith Scott to Parliament as Technocrat Ministers, since according to him, their names were not extracted from the coalition’s list of candidates and they did not fit the criteria for the positions.
The matter was filed on behalf of Morian by former Attorney General Nandlall.
Incumbent Attorney General Basil Williams and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, are named as respondents.
According to the motion, Morian is seeking a declaration that Felix and Scott are not lawful members of the National Assembly and an order that they be prevented from sitting in the Assembly unless their names are extracted from the coalition’s list.
In his application, Morian cited articles 60, 103, 105, 160 and 232 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01.
The legal arguments into the matter commenced before Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang yesterday.
In his response, the AG essentially objected to the motion. Williams argued that although the Court has exclusive rights to deal with the matter, it was incorrectly placed before the Court. He explained that instead of a motion, the issue should have been presented by way of an election petition.
It is the AG’s position that the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue, as such. He held that at this stage of the hearing, the issue of jurisdiction should first be dealt with by the Court before moving to the substantive proceedings.
Underlining that there are special procedures for dealing with such matters, Williams further noted that since this is a matter which touches and concerns the validity and legality of “elected Members of Parliament, it must be done by way of an election petition.”
“We are dealing with an issue that the court has no jurisdiction to proceed on, a motion filed by Mr. Nandlall, because Mr. Nandlall is questioning the right of two members to sit in the National Assembly. By questioning the right of two members to sit in the National Assembly, he is therefore questioning the election and he must (present) this by way of elections petition,” Williams said.
However, Nandlall in his arguments yesterday noted that Williams has completely misconstrued the case, which he has filed, as well as the constitution.
Making reference to certain sections of the constitution, Nandlall pointed out that the applicant in the matter did not seek to question the elections or those elected to sit in the National Assembly, but rather, the selection of the
two persons (Felix and Scott) to the Parliament.
“I am saying they have been properly elected (but) I am questioning their selection to the Parliament as technocrat Ministers. They should not…They have appeared on the list of candidates; they were elected as members of that list but they were not selected by the head of the list and therefore they cannot be technocrat Ministers,” he added.
According to Nandlall, the constitution clearly states “an elected member is defined as a person who has been elected in accordance with certain articles of the constitution; what that means is people who have been elected at an election.”
He explained that the selection of members for the National Assembly is extracted from the list of elected members.
“When a list is presented to the elections and that list is allocated one or more seats, that entire list is elected to sit in the National Assembly, but only based on the number of seats that is allocated; only that number of persons can be selected from the list to sit in the National Assembly.”
“I’m not challenging their election but their selection to the National Assembly,” Nandlall maintained.
The PPP had strongly objected to the appointment of Scott and Felix as Technocrat, (expert or skilled in their field) Members of the National Assembly.
The party via a statement had contended that “Articles 103 (3) and 105 of the Constitution and laws pronouncing on the eligibility of appointment of Technocratic Ministers, do not confer Technocratic status on these persons already sworn in by President David Granger as Ministers”.
The Party pointed that Felix and Scott are listed on the APNU+AFC National Top Up list of Candidates at numbers 24 and 46 respectively.
“These views of the PPP have been shared with the Parliament Office. The PPP is urging that the Constitution and relevant laws be respected and calls on the Clerk of the National Assembly not to administer the Oath as Member of Parliament to these persons,” the party had urged.
In his defence, the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs had insisted that the appointments were perfectly legal.
Isaacs told the media that a closer examination of the said Articles, 103 (3) and 105 of the Constitution would reveal that they do not adequately define a non-elected Member.
The court case is set to continue next Wednesday (August 12).

---

---