THE action taken recently by Chairman of Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Mr. Clement Corlette to deny a request by Councillor Kwame Mc Coy to discuss a motion that was presented at a statutory meeting was regarded as “unlawful, undemocratic and unfair” by Attorney-at-law Mr. Anil Nandlall.
In a television interview with the National Communications Network (NCN) Wednesday , Nandlall, also a Member of Parliament (MP), said he examined the motion as well as the relevant standing order before drawing this conclusion.
He explained that a motion, once presented, must be debated in accordance with the standing order; and if it is found at the end that the motion is not supported by the number of votes required for its passing, then it would be rejected.
Nandlall said no one, including the Chairman, can unilaterally determine that a motion is bad and keep it off of the agenda without any debate.
“That is the normal, ordinary principle of fairness, democracy and of the rule of law,” Nandlall said.
He is confident there is redress that the law will grant to councillors to curtail Corlette’s continuous and systematic conduct.
The statutory meeting was held last Tuesday at the Regional Democratic Council (RDC) of Region Four Triumph, East Coast Demerara, and was deferred to next Tuesday due to  lack of a quorum.
At the meeting, Mc Coy presented a motion relating to a court matter between Corlette and the Regional Executive Officer Mr. Shafdar Alli and requested that it be discussed.
Mc Coy said the urgency was due to the fact that this is a matter of public interest which had brought considerable disrepute and embarrassment to the Council as a whole.
The Regional Chairman denied Mc Coy’s request on the ground that he and the rest of the Councillors were not given adequate notice of the motion.
Mc Coy responded saying that he is part of the Council and the matter involves his reputation. McCoy also said that Corlette has been misdirecting the Council based on the established view of the Court which brings his (Corlette’s) leadership and competence into question.
“The dismissal of the said matter in the High Court confirms the Regional Chairman’s autocratic, dogmatic and opinionated views and positions, ignoring the views, ideas and opinions of councillors which have often caused conflicts in the Council,” he said.
Mc Coy reiterated that he has no trust in the competence and leadership of the Chairman and reminded Corlette that because he (Corlette) lost the court case, the Council was not out of order to proceed with discussions on it.
Corlette subsequently remarked that the rules are clear and Mc Coy’s request was outside of the constitution. He said proceeding with it was a matter for him to decide upon, and at that stage he was denying the request.
A Councillor suggested that the Clerk of Council, Mr. Ashford Ambedkar, be called upon to state whether or not he was in receipt of the motion from Mc Coy.
Ambedkar confirmed that he did not receive the motion, but suggested to the Chairman not to deny Mc Coy’s request as it is indeed a matter of public interest.
Corlette maintained his position and Mc Coy said, in view of this, the meeting was not going to continue.
He left the boardroom and a number of councillors followed him.
The Chairman had taken action against the REO on November 3, 2009, when he claimed that the decisions made by the REO were without the authority of the Regional Chairman.
The Chairman sought an order or Rule Nisi of Prohibition to prevent the REO from acting, executing or taking any steps to execute projects and awarding contracts without the lawful authority of the Chairman or Council.
Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire deliberated on the matter on February 9 last, and delivered a ruling in which the matter was dismissed and the Regional Chairman, as the applicant, was ordered to pay the REO as the respondent, $25,000 in damages.