THE fate of the Parliamentary Motion in the High Court brought by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall against the Opposition Leader and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) is likely to be clarified today when the lawyers representing Opposition Leader, David  Granger and Speaker and head of the Alliance For Change (AFC) list  Raphael Trotman, disclose their attitude to the Chief Justice’s preliminary ruling. This attitude would have resulted from the right given them to file or not to file an Affidavit in answer to the Attorney General’s Motion and to participate in arguments dealing with its merit as outlined in the  preliminary ruling.
In his motion, the Attorney General is seeking several orders in the matter of Articles 8, 60 and 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 Article 60 and 160 of the Constitution of
Guyana had the provisions of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act Number 15 of 2000”.
The Motion is also asking for   the February 10th 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 of four PPP/C members, four APNU members and one AFC member as opposed to the Governing party’s proposed, 10 seat Committee  (five PPP 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.