Speaker asked to violate doctrine of separation of powers- Datadin

Jan 03, 2019 News

The doctrine of separation of powers would be violated today if the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, revisits his ruling on the safe passage of the No-Confidence Motion and proceeds to interpret the Constitution as to the meaning of majority in Article 106, says Attorney at Law, Sanjeev Datadin.
The Speaker would do well to avoid actions that will even merely, threaten the doctrine, he added.

Attorney at Law, Sanjeev Datadin

Datadin’s argument was premised on the fact that Dr. Scotland would effectively be stepping into the functions of the court.
Datadin recalled the three arms of the State are the Executive, the Legislature and Judiciary. He said that the Legislature is only to enact law, not interpret it. “That is the exclusive province of court which is the judicial branch of State.
“The Speaker is not entitled to embark upon a process of interpretation of article 106. There is a distinction; he is entitled to apply the law. What he did on December 21st was apply the law when he carried the motion. As it stands, in simple terms, the motion is carried and the Speaker is not allowed to undo that.”
Datadin said that what the Attorney General (AG), Basil Williams, is trying to argue is “a clear and obvious misinterpretation of Article 106 where they say majority means something else. That is like jumbie mathematics to say that 33 over 32 is not a majority. Even if it were not, what the AG is asking the Speaker to do is to put a peculiar interpretation of the word majority.
“The Speaker can only apply the law not interpret the law. He has to defer to the Court.”
Datadin recalled a case in recent history—the Budget Cut Case—taken to the court by the then AG, Anil Nandlall; the respondents were the then Opposition Leader, David Granger and then Speaker, Raphael Trotman.
Datadin said that the argument in that case was whether the Opposition was right in the law and Constitution to cut the allocations set aside in the National Budget.
In that case, Justice Ian Chang told the court that he could have only provided an interpretation of the Constitution if there was confusion, but could not have done anything about the votes in the National Assembly.
“That had to do with the separation of powers,” said Datadin. Even further, Datadin said that the Speaker cannot sit on an appeal of his own decision.
“What he would be doing now is sitting on an appeal to his own decision. He has certified the motion. He cannot go back and say that an error has been made, only the court can do that. Nevertheless, there is this unfair government pressure for the Speaker to do what he has no power to do.”
Every administration law textbook bears out, in great detail, that you cannot make a decision and every time someone is unhappy with it, they give you a suggestion as to why you should revisit the decision. It would mean that the decision process of the Speaker would be never ending.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News