Govt, opposition MPs differ on role of court in work of parliament

Lawyers representing the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) last Friday argued that government’s move to the High Court to determine the composition of the parliamentary Committee of Selection has no place there.

The comments were made during the opening arguments at the first hearing of the constitutional motion brought against APNU Leader David Granger and AFC Leader Raphael Trotman, regarding the composition of the committee.
Granger is being represented by Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Basil Williams, while attorneys Nigel Hughes and Roysdale Forde are representing Trotman.
Meanwhile, McKay in his submission said that such a motion had no place in the court, as no fundamental right of citizens has been violated. He told the court that Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall was seeking to bring a case against himself because the move amounted to one part of the state taking legal action against another.
Forde also argued that the court had no jurisdiction to decide on the work of the National Assembly.
“Such a motion suggests that the court has a role to verify the composition of select committees on the basis that they do not satisfy the system of proportionality on which the election system is based,” Forde said.
Hughes argued that the court does not have a role in determining how the representatives of lists should vote.
“The court cannot compel the leader of the list to vote in a certain way.”
In his defence, Nandlall pointed out that the court has jurisdiction over the workings of the legislature. He said should the opposition lawyers arguments be upheld, no one could come to the court to complain. He insisted that a constitutional violation had occurred and the Constitution does not find his motion wholly untenable.
Nandlall cited a case where the court was asked to determine whether then The United Force (TUF) leader Manzoor Nadir had breached the Constitution when he joined the government benches several years ago.
In its motion, government through Nandlall is contending that the opposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality of parties, and their seating in Parliament and committees of Parliament.

Nandlall in his motion is seeking several orders in the matter of Articles 8, 60, 119A, 119B, and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana; the Standing Orders of the National Assembly of Guyana; and the Manual of the Rules, Procedures and Operations of Committees of the Parliament of Guyana.
Among them is “a declaration that all standing committees and special select committees of the National Assembly of the 10th Parliament of Guyana are to be constituted in proportion to the number of seats which each political party was allocated in the said National Assembly based upon the results of the national and general elections held on November 28, 2011, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana and the provisions of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act Number 15 of 2000”.
The motion is also asking for the February 10 composition of the Committee of Selection, which was mandated by a vote, be declared a violation of the principle of proportionality. The opposition had used their majority in Parliament to have the committee comprise four PPP/C members, four APNU members and one AFC member as opposed to the governing party’s proposed 10-seat committee (five PPP/C members, four APNU members and one AFC member).
The motion is also asking for an order to have the vote revoked, cancelled, or annulled since it violates the Constitution and elections laws acts. The move to the court is one step by the government in confronting what it calls the “wrongdoings” of the opposition parliamentary parties.
“The collaboration between the parties in opposition to the governing party in Parliament was leading to grossly unprincipled actions, and that was a conclusion by Cabinet members at its meetings of March 6,” Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon had stated at his post-Cabinet briefing.

Lawyers representing the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) last Friday argued that government’s move to the High Court to determine the composition of the parliamentary Committee of Selection has no place there.The comments were made during the opening arguments at the first hearing of the constitutional motion brought against APNU Leader David Granger and AFC Leader Raphael Trotman, regarding the composition of the committee.Granger is being represented by Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Basil Williams, while attorneys Nigel Hughes and Roysdale Forde are representing Trotman. Meanwhile, McKay in his submission said that such a motion had no place in the court, as no fundamental right of citizens has been violated. He told the court that Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall was seeking to bring a case against himself because the move amounted to one part of the state taking legal action against another.Forde also argued that the court had no jurisdiction to decide on the work of the National Assembly.“Such a motion suggests that the court has a role to verify the composition of select committees on the basis that they do not satisfy the system of proportionality on which the election system is based,” Forde said.Hughes argued that the court does not have a role in determining how the representatives of lists should vote.“The court cannot compel the leader of the list to vote in a certain way.” In his defence, Nandlall pointed out that the court has jurisdiction over the workings of the legislature. He said should the opposition lawyers arguments be upheld, no one could come to the court to complain. He insisted that a constitutional violation had occurred and the Constitution does not find his motion wholly untenable.Nandlall cited a case where the court was asked to determine whether then The United Force (TUF) leader Manzoor Nadir had breached the Constitution when he joined the government benches several years ago.In its motion, government through Nandlall is contending that the opposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality of parties, and their seating in Parliament and committees of Parliament.Nandlall in his motion is seeking several orders in the matter of Articles 8, 60, 119A, 119B, and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana; the Standing Orders of the National Assembly of Guyana; and the Manual of the Rules, Procedures and Operations of Committees of the Parliament of Guyana.Among them is “a declaration that all standing committees and special select committees of the National Assembly of the 10th Parliament of Guyana are to be constituted in proportion to the number of seats which each political party was allocated in the said National Assembly based upon the results of the national and general elections held on November 28, 2011, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana and the provisions of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act Number 15 of 2000”. The motion is also asking for the February 10 composition of the Committee of Selection, which was mandated by a vote, be declared a violation of the principle of proportionality. The opposition had used their majority in Parliament to have the committee comprise four PPP/C members, four APNU members and one AFC member as opposed to the governing party’s proposed 10-seat committee (five PPP/C members, four APNU members and one AFC member).The motion is also asking for an order to have the vote revoked, cancelled, or annulled since it violates the Constitution and elections laws acts. The move to the court is one step by the government in confronting what it calls the “wrongdoings” of the opposition parliamentary parties.“The collaboration between the parties in opposition to the governing party in Parliament was leading to grossly unprincipled actions, and that was a conclusion by Cabinet members at its meetings of March 6,” Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon had stated at his post-Cabinet briefing.