Opposition heads to court over legality of NRF Act

Apr 05, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – The main Opposition coalition, A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC), has made good on its promise to file a court action challenging the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act.

The action comes almost five months after the highly controversial passage of the NRF Act in the National Assembly.
The lawsuit, which was drafted by the APNU+AFC Shadow Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Roysdale Forde, SC, and attorney-at-law, Selwyn A. Pieters, highlights ‘deficiencies’ of the procedure undertaken to pass the new law.
The court document, which names the Opposition’s Chip Whip Christopher Jones and Union Rep. Norris Witter as the applicants, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir among the respondents, specifically highlights the absence of the Speaker’s original Mace – the ceremonial instrument used in the process of passing legislations—during the passage of the NRF Bill.
As such, the Opposition is seeking several declaratory orders of the High Court that the conduct and/or proceedings of the National Assembly, during the passage of the NRF Bill on December 29, 2021 in the absence of the Mace, constitute a breach of the Constitution, Common Law, and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
Further, the Opposition is asking the Court to declare the holding and or continuation of proceedings of the National Assembly on December 29, 2021 with the use of a replacement mace without any approved motion to do so as ultra vires [beyond the powers] of the Constitution and the event null and void.
Besides, challenging the legality of the NRF based on the procedure undertaken in the National Assembly, the APNU+AFC is also contending that the NRF Act constitutes a breach of fundamental human rights of Witter, who is the second named applicant in the matter.

According to the Coalition, Witter is entitled, as part of his fundamental human right, to take part in the conduct of public affairs of Guyana. This right, the party contends, is guaranteed by Article 154 A of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
However, according to the party, Witter’s rights were trampled upon when the Executive [Government] failed to hold a public consultation on the most vital piece of legislation with its citizenry, of which, Witter is a part.
The Opposition Party continued that “in accordance with Article 154 A of the Constitution, which mandates that human rights enshrined in International Conventions set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, the National Assembly, as the Legislature of Guyana in legislating a NRF Bill for Guyana, is required and obligated by the Constitution and Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to engage in consultation with the stakeholders and citizenry of Guyana.”
Further the Coalition said, “…The Executive in designing and formulating a NRF policy for Guyana is required and obligated by the Constitution and Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to engage in consultation with the stakeholders and citizenry of Guyana.”
Consequently, it noted that the Parliament of Guyana in enacting a NRF Act for Guyana is required and obligated by the Constitution and Covenant on civil and political rights to engage in consultation with stakeholders and citizenry.
Moreover, the party is seeking a declaration that the Government failed to engage in any or sufficient consultation with the citizenry and stakeholders as required and mandated by the Constitution in the design of the NRF policy.
Meanwhile, as it relates to the first named applicant, Jones, who is a Member of Parliament (MP), the party is seeking a declaration that his rights to a legitimate expectation that the National Assembly would function, operate and conduct its affairs in accordance with the standing orders were contravened.
Further, the party is asking the court to declare that Jones’ human right to political participation as guaranteed by Article 13 and or 154 A of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Covenant Of Civil And Political Rights was contravened by the refusal of the National Assembly to consider the Petition submitted by himself and other citizens, prior to the passage of the NRF Bill.
Additionally, the coalition wants a declaration that the decision of the Speaker to permit and allow the passage of the NRF Bill without affording or permitting any MP, inclusive of Jones, to participate in the debate on the Bill is ultra vires of the Constitution, democracy, and inclusive governance.
The Coalition has also asked for a declaration that the executive’s failure to constitute the Human Rights Commission, a Commission established under Article 154 A of the Constitution, is a contravention of the Constitution.
As a result, the party wants a series of orders declaring that for the reasons set out in its application, the Natural Resource Fund Act 2021 Act No. 19 of 2021 and the sub sequential orders and regulations made pursuant to it, is null and void and of no force and effect.
Consequently, the APNU+AFC wants an order declaring that all actions taken by anyone, including the Minister of Finance, upon the date the Act came into force, is null and void and of no force and effect.
Added to this, the party wants an order declaring that any constitution of any board under the Natural Resource Fund Act No.19 of 2021 is null and void and of no legal effect.
Further, the Opposition is asking the Court to grant any other order necessary to ensure that the NRF be replenished to the extent that any sums of monies in the said NRF that were disbursed and or taken out, pursuant to the passage of the NRF Act.

 

---

---