Court to rule on Rohee’s no-confidence motion challenge on Friday

Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on Friday is expected to make his preliminary ruling on the lawsuit challenging the opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion against Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall had challenged the motion naming David Granger in his capacity as Opposition Leader and Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman as respondents.
The motion said that Resolution Number 18 passed in the National Assembly on Monday, July 30 is unlawful, violates the doctrine of separation of powers, and is null and void as well as unconstitutional.  It also stated that despite objections from the government’s side of the National Assembly, the Speaker allowed the motion to be debated and duly passed on July 30.
Sanction

Since the passing of the motion, leaders of both the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) have made statements to the effect that the National Assembly will sanction Minister Rohee if the said no-confidence motion is ignored by the government of Guyana.
The motion also made reference to the APNU saying publicly that upon the resumption of sittings of the National Assembly, it will approach the privileges committee to have Rohee suspended for six months if he fails to adhere to the no-confidence motion.
The attorney general had argued in his motion that Minister Rohee was appointed by the president in his current capacity, not at the pleasure of the National Assembly. The attorney general is also arguing that the Speaker of the House may have committed a grave constitutional error and abrogated the doctrine of separation of powers when the no-confidence motion was entertained.
Referring to the decision by the House Speaker as a “constitutional travesty”, Nandlall is asking the High Court to consider that “even greater constitutional heresy is likely to yet take place”, since based upon the public declarations made by the leaders of the opposition parties, steps have already been taken in consequence of the no-confidence motion and the resolution passed thereafter.
Granger, in his response to the AG court action, had stated that the declarations and orders sought by Nandlall were without merit and were misconceived. He noted that the decision of the Speaker to send the matter to the privileges committee was an internal proceeding of the National Assembly.
In addition, AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan has also expressed some degree of confidence that the verdict will be in the opposition’s favour.  In an invited comment,   Ramjattan pointed out that like in any other cases, his party trusts that the acting chief justice’s judgment will be without prejudice. He further related that if the final decisions are not found not to be in accordance with the party’s expectations, then they would move to appeal the judgment.