Trial challenging legality of NRF Bill wraps up

Dec 31, 2022 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

Kaieteur News – On Friday, the High Court heard the testimony of the final witness in the case challenging the legality of the passage of the Natural Resources Fund (NRF) Bill.

The Court heard the testimony from the Department of Public Information’s (DPI) Videography Manager, Kennyann Bacchus, on what transpired on the day in question. Bacchus’ testimony concluded the hearing on the matter and will see Justice Navindra Singh handing down his decision on March 17, 2023 at 09:00h.

Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, SC

Notably, both the Claimants and the Respondents have already presented their case to the court.

The Judge also ordered that both the Claimant and Respondents in the case file written submissions by February 10, 2023 and submissions in reply by February 20, 2023.

The challenge to the legality of the Bill was initiated by A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Opposition Chief Whip, Christopher Jones, and Trade Unionist, Norris Witter. The duo contended that NRF Bill was not legally passed in the National Assembly on December 29, 2021.

Meanwhile, outside of the courtroom, Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall, S.C, the Lead Counsel representing the Government of Guyana in the matter, told Reporters that he is confident that justice will prevail and that the rule of law will win another battle. He added, “This case should not have been filed in the first place…”

Kaieteur News had reported that among other things, Jones and Witter claimed that due to the absence of the ‘Parliamentary Mace’ – the most significant symbol in the National Assembly, and some members not seated, the Legislation cannot be regarded as being lawfully passed.

The NRF Bill which has since become law is meant to ensure that there is security, transparency and accountability surrounding revenues the country gains from oil and gas. It also outlines a structure of how the monies from oil and gas will be used and provide for continuous public disclosures, audits and parliamentary approvals.

On a previous occasion, Opposition Chief Whip, Christopher Jones was subject to cross-examination in the case which was filed to challenge the legality of passage of the Natural Resource Fund bill which was approved in National Assembly on December 2021.

A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Opposition Chief Whip, Christopher Jones

After giving a brief overview of his witness statement produced in the trial, Jones faced several questions from Attorney General.

While under cross-examination by the AG, Jones accepted that the Opposition members had openly and loudly protested the passage of the Bill. He agreed too that while the Speaker is empowered to manage the affairs of Parliament by way of the Standing Orders, this did not stop the Opposition from defying his orders after he rejected a proposal by Jones to have the matter debated.

In response to the Speaker’s denial of his request, Jones agreed with the AG’s suggestion that this prompted him and other Opposition Members of Parliament (MP) to leave their designated seat without the approval of the Speaker and engage in a protest exercise whereby, they banged on the desks, blew whistles and chanted loudly.

This, Jones said was in an attempt to get the Speaker and Government members of the National Assembly to adhere to provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution. Further, the Opposition Chief Whip agreed with the suggestion that their actions brought the proceeding to a temporary halt but this did not stop the Speaker from allowing Finance Minister within the Office of the President, Dr. Ashni Singh, from completing his presentation on the NRF Bill.

Asked about the series of events that followed as Dr. Singh read the Bill, Jones said he could only speak to some of the events as he did not capture everything as they unfolded.

He claimed that for instance, while he knew that there was a confrontation between some of the Opposition MPs and the Speaker and staff of the National Assembly over the Parliamentary Mace, he did not see which MP attempted to run off with the ceremonial object.

Jones claimed that he could not recall some of the events clearly- he only learnt of some via news reports.