Court set to hear appeal against former Chief Justice’s ruling on technocrat ministers

Mar 04, 2019 News

The Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown said it will commence hearing an appeal filed by the government against a ruling by former Chief Justice Ian Change which bars Winston Felix, Minister of Citizenship and Keith Scott, Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection, from sitting in the National Assembly as Technocrats.
The hearing will commence on April 30.
On February 19, 2016, Chang ruled that the a Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance for Change (AFC), ministers cannot continue to sit in the National Assembly as non-elected members, since they were both elected as part of the coalition’s list of national candidates.

Minister of Citizenship Winston Felix

Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection Keith Scott

Chang had also noted that despite their appointment following the 2015 General Elections by President David Granger to be executive members of the Government, such an executive appointment does not entitle Felix and Scott to hold seats or sit as Technocrat Ministers.
The Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) had objected to the appointment of Felix and Scott as Technocrat (expert or skilled in their field) Members of the National Assembly. The party had contended that, “Articles 103 (3) and 105 of the Constitution of Guyana 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 High Court challenge to the minister’s appointment was filed by PPP member, Desmond Morian, who was represented by Former Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall. Government had indicated that the ruling was not something it can accept since it is of the view that the ministers were properly appointed, hence a challenge was filed with the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General (AG), Basil Williams.
One ground on which the appeal was filed is that at the time of delivering the rule, Chang, who was the outgoing Chief Justice, was functus officio, which is used especially to define an officer who is no longer in office or of an instrument that has fulfilled its purpose.
The AG is contending that Chang’s decision cannot be supported in law. He, said too, that Justice Chang, “fell into grave error of law and misdirected himself in law when he found that persons who are on the successful list of candidates are elected and therefore cannot qualify under Article 105 of the Constitution of Guyana to be ‘non-elected’ members of parliament and who have not been chosen or selected from the list of candidates to be Members of Parliament are excluded from being selected by the President as persons who are qualified to be elected as members of the National Assembly.”
Contending that Chang’s decision is bad in law, Williams had said, “The learned Chief Justice failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03 and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections Act), Chapter 1:04”.
Williams has also said that Chang also misdirected himself in law when he, “Failed to take into account that Article 163 (4) (a) of the Constitution of Guyana empowered Parliament to make provisions with respect to the circumstances and manner in which and the conditions upon which proceedings for the determination of any question under this article may be instituted in the High Court which Parliament did by enacting the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, Cap. 1:04.”
Further, the Attorney General contends that Chang’s decision is in breach of the rules of natural justice because he failed him a hearing before delivering his decision.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News