IT has been brought to my attention that opposition MPs were not paid salaries for their intermittent boycott of parliament during the 1970s and 1980s to protest rigged elections and abuse of human rights.  That was a flagrant violation of the rule of law and norms of parliamentary representation.

Although opposition MPs were not in parliament, they were still carrying out their functions and, as such, entitled to salaries and stipends for executing their duties.

I doubt the Privy Council of England, if it were still Guyana’s highest court, which was abolished to remove challenges to dictatorial rule, would not have allowed the denial of salaries of M.Ps.  There is a legal precedence from a 2007 Privy Council ruling involving Trinidad’s M.Ps that would support claims of M.Ps who were denied salaries. I believe the affected former M.Ps should (PPP as well as Liberator M.Ps who boycotted parliament) file an appeal to the CCJ, if there is no statute of limitation, to receive retroactive salaries with interests. Justice needs to be served in this matter.

If M.Ps are paid salaries because of their attendance in parliament, then their salaries would be very low (a pittance) because the number of days and hours they attend parliament is very small when compared with the amount of their time spent outside of parliament to represent their constituents and carry out the business of the people.
Readers (lawyers, judges, and legal scholars, in particular) would be interested to know that in Trinidad, opposition M.Ps (of the UNC) were also not paid their salaries for “boycotting” parliament in 2002 after President ANR Robinson appointed Patrick Manning (of the PNM) as Prime Minister in the tied elections (18-18) of December 2001.
The Trinidadian government denied the UNC M.Ps their salaries, arguing that they did not take their oaths of office and, as such, were technically not M.Ps deserving of a salary.  I conducted a poll on that issue for NACTA and found a divided electorate, with UNC supporters saying the “boycott” M.Ps should be paid their salaries, while the PNM supporters opposed payment.  Some respondents suggested a court challenge, as did happen. The local courts (including the highest local appeal court) ruled in favour of the PNM government denying salaries to the UNC M.Ps. Guyanese Queens Counsel Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye appealed to the Privy Council, which reversed the ruling of the Trinidad highest court.  The Privy Council ruled that the opposition-elected M.Ps were entitled to their salaries, even if they were not sworn in as M.Ps.             The ruling came about six years after the fact and the M.Ps were paid their salaries with interest.  Had Guyana not lost its right of appeal to the independent Privy Council, a right that was taken away illegally by Forbes Burnham without the nation’s approval, M.Ps who boycotted parliament would have been paid their salaries, as per the precedent set by the PC ruling.