‘I wasn’t given a hearing’

Jun 23, 2022 News

– MP Mahipaul to legally challenge decision to suspend Opposition MPs

Kaieteur News – Legal advice is being sought on the motion to suspend eight opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) for the ruckus, they created in the National assembly late last year.
The motion is set to be tabled at the next sitting of the National Assembly.

APNU+AFC Parliamentarian, Ganesh Mahipaul.

A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Parliamentarian, Ganesh Mahipaul told Kaieteur News on Tuesday, that while he is yet to receive confirmation on the decision from the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges, he already reached out to his lawyer for advice on the matter. Mahipaul is among seven other APNU+AFC MPs; Sherod Duncan, Christopher Jones, Vinceroy Jordan, Annette Ferguson, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Maureen A. Philadelphia, and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley who will be suspended.
The motion to suspend expected to be tabled in the National Assembly is as a result of a decision made at the level of the Parliamentary Privileges Committee following the ruckus which was caused in the House at the December 29, 2021, during the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF).
The NRF Bill 2021 was passed in the National Assembly amid chaotic in-House protest by the Opposition a Partnership for National Unity+ Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) MPs. Last January, the names of eight opposition parliamentarians were submitted and considered by the committee for disciplinary action to be meted out.
Earlier this week, Kaieteur News was reliably informed that the committee had come to a decision to sanction the eight MPs.
However, Mahipaul is adamant that the decision that was taken provides a basis for a legal challenge. He explained that this is due to the fact that he believes that he was not given a fair hearing over the allegation made against him by the Privileges Committee.
He continued: “I had received a letter from the committee which stated that I was being accused of ‘grave misconduct,’ and ‘wrongdoings’ and that I should write to the committee to show cause why I should not be disciplined. I responded to the letter asking for specifics of this grave misconduct and wrongdoing that I was alleged to have committed because these are wide and ambiguous terms… However, I am yet to receive a response from the committee and now through the Kaieteur News I have learnt that a decision was taken to sanction myself and other opposition MPs.”
The APNU+AFC MP told Kaieteur News that this is grounds for litigation. He noted while he is yet to receive official word from the committee, he is already looking to challenge the matter in a court of law.
He said, “A number of things played out here one [1] is that I was not afforded an opportunity to plead my case in keeping with the constitution and laws of natural justice and two [2]; the committee in itself may have been operating from a place of conflict and bias, since the very people who brought the accusation, deliberated and made the decision to suspend…”
“The accusers were judge, jury and executioner…this matter should not be dealt in the like manner. It should be challenged in before a court of component jurisdiction or by an impartial tribunal…” added Mahipaul.
In the meantime, Kaieteur News understands while no date has been set for the motion to be tabled in the National Assembly, the Privileges Committee has recommending that four of the MPs Philadelphia, Halley, Jordan and Ferguson be suspended for six sittings of the House while the others are to be suspended for four consecutive sittings.
Last December, when Minister, with responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, was invited by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir – to deliver his remarks on the Bill – the opposition MPs erupted with chants, “No thieving Bill must pass!” as they slammed the bottom of their plastic water bottles to their desks in rhythmic fashion and some of them even took the mace from the Speaker Desk.
Following the chaotic display, recommendations were made for the MPs to be taken before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee and face disciplinary action.
Government Chief Whip and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, had called for the Opposition MPs to be cited for the “gross misconduct.”
Teixeira in tabling the motion cited Standing Order 32 which states “(2) Any Member desiring to raise a matter under this Standing Order shall first obtain leave of the Speaker who will determine whether the Member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege.
The Minister noted that the events of December 29 will go down in the annals of the Guyana Parliament as disgraceful and that in the age of technology the evidence of the conduct of the Opposition is indisputable. She argued that the space between the government side and the opposition in any parliament is considered a “safe zone” and that was breached.
“The safe space and any entrance without permission is interpreted as an act of aggression and a threat to the safety of the members of parliament…These events that transpired in this House, the stealing and the damage to the mace of Parliament, deliberate (and) willful damage to the equipment of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, the control communication room, the assault on a member of staff, the repeated disregard for the Speaker and the authority of the Assembly require stern measures. As a consequence, so I brought and sought your leave and received your permission to bring a privilege motion…,” Teixeira said.
The motion, which was not circulated prior to its reading, said that the APNU+AFC coalition MPs conducted themselves in a “grossly, disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful manner and in particular, repeatedly disregarded and disrespected, ignored the authority of the Assembly and the Speaker thereby committing contempt and breaches of privilege.”