King fails to contest legality of City Hall CoI
Town Clerk, Royston King (right) with his lawyer, Maxwell Edwards (Photo by Adrian Narine)
Town Clerk, Royston King (right) with his lawyer, Maxwell Edwards (Photo by Adrian Narine)

– to reappear Friday to finish testifying

TOWN Clerk, Royston King, through his lawyer Maxwell Edwards failed Monday in his motion to challenge the legality of the establishment of the City Hall Commission of Inquiry (CoI) and its authority to investigate him.

King was scheduled to begin testifying before the CoI yesterday morning, but that session ended in uncertainty as to whether or not he would take to the stand.

The motion was successfully quashed when the commission’s lawyer, Everton Singh-Lammy argued, at the opening of the afternoon session, that there were lawful provisions for the Local Government Commission (LGC) to establish the CoI under Section 78 (a) of the Constitution.

This was followed by Commission Chairman, Justice (ret’d) Cecil Kennard, ruling that the LGC had a right to delegate it’s right to investigate as it sees fit, particularly in a case where the investigation requires expertise outside of the LGC’s range.

Said Justice Kennard as he handed down his decision on the question of legality: “It is clear that the commission has a right to initiate and investigate. Does that mean that the LGC has the competence to investigate such a matter?

“Does it mean that the LGC cannot delegate some of its functions? Surely not. That would be adopting a very narrow view. Having regard for the magnitude of the task, and in view of the various complaints being brought, I would say it was commendable on the part of the commission to set up this inquiry.

“And in examining legislation, one has to apply a commonsense approach to the situation.”
Subsequent to Singh-Lammy’s presentation and the judge’s ruling, King began his testimony but was not able to complete it by the close of the session for the day, and is now scheduled to reappear on Friday.

He was summoned before the commission to answer to a number of charges that were levelled against him over the past few weeks, but before he took the stand, his lawyer Maxwell Edwards made what he called “a preliminary point” that the CoI was not established through the proper channel, in accordance with either the Local Government Commission Act (LGCA), or Chapter 28:01 Municipal and District Council Acts.
That observation out of the way, Edwards said that in that case, he would advise his client not to take the stand, and that if Justice Kennard overrules his submission, he would advise that he “testify as a witness under protest”.

Addressing the Commission’s Chairman specifically, Edwards contended that the LGCA only provided for the LGC to investigate matters itself according to Section 14 (1), or to delegate its investigation responsibility to a “local government organ authority” according to Section 19.

“I would submit that this commission is void and a nullity on two grounds, the first ground in terms of Section 14 (1) of the Local Government Commission Act, under which this commission was established,” Edwards said, adding:

“Is this commission the Local Government Commission? The simple answer is no. So this commission could not be the commission contemplated by this Section [14(1)].”
Edwards also noted that though there are provisions in Chapter 28:01, under the Eighth Schedule for the establishment of an inquiry, that provision says the Commissioner and Terms of Reference of the Inquiry has to be established by the Minister of Communities.
“The Minister of Communities has not established this commission,” Edwards said, adding that while there is also the Commission of Inquiry Act, it calls for the CoI to be established by the President.
“Certainly, Sir,” he told Justice Kennard, “the President has not established this commission.”

In his response, Singh-Lammy contended that while Section 19 of the LGCA states that the LGC “may delegate… to any local government organ authority”, it in no way states that the LGC is limited to delegating only to local government organ authorities.
Further, Singh-Lammy said, Section 78 (a) gives the LGC widespread power to handle all local government matters “as it deems fit”.

Section 78 (a) of the Constution reads: “Parliament shall establish a Local Government Commission, the composition and rules of which empower the commission to deal with, as it deems fit, all matters related to the regulation and staffing of local government organs and with dispute resolution within and between local government organs.”
As such, Justice Kennard ruled that the CoI had proper jurisdiction to investigate King and other matters pertaining to City Hall.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.