CJ to rule after receiving AG’s written reply
AFTER receiving from Attorney General Anil Nandlall a written reply to the submissions by lawyers for the opposition, Acting Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang, S.C., will notify the parties on the date of his ruling on the matter. This aspect of the report was not highlighted in the report of the last court hearing, through no fault of the writer.
The Notice of Motion by the Attorney General also seeks 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 reliefs sought  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 on the results of the National and Regional 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 Election Laws  (Amendment) Act Number 15 of 2000.
The motion is also asking that 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 composed of 4 PPP/C members, 4 APNU members, and one AFC member; (as against five PPP members, four APNU members and one AFC member).
The AG Notice of Motion is also asking for an order to have the vote revoked, cancelled, or annulled, since it violates the Constitution and Laws Acts.
The move to the court, the AG said in his Notice of Motion, was one step by the government in confronting what it called the “wrongdoings” of the Opposition parliamentary parties.
Among the AG’s final submissions to the court was that the Standing Committee of Selection must be declared unconstitutional.
The Opposition lawyers are led by Senior Counsel Rex Mc Kay, and include Mr. Basil Williams; Attorneys-at-law Neil Boston, Khemraj Ramjattan, Roysdale Forde, Mrs. Glasford, and Mr. Christopher Ram.
The AG’s Notice of Motion was attacked by Senior Counsel Rex Mc Kay, who contended that the Motion could not stand because “a Notice of Motion”, unlike “an Originating Motion”, was not the proper mode to begin proceedings.
“The applicant had erroneously filed a Notice of Motion to commence these proceedings. In Kent Garment Factory (Supra) (1991)  46 WIR, after holding that the duties  and functions of the competent authority in the Ministry of Trade is an administrative function, and does not fall within any right or obligation contemplated Under Article 144,  having dismissed the applicant’s  Constitutional Motions, said at p. 184 G.J; 185 a.    At page 192 b, Chancellor George said: “The above conclusion does not mean that persons in the appellants’ position are bereft of any means of redressing their perceived wrong. The solution is in Order 1, 2 and Order 3, Rule 1, of the High Court Rules.
“So, in my opinion, save and except where proceedings by way of petition or otherwise are prescribed or permitted by any Act, or by the common law, or by these rules, or by any rules of court; any person who seeks to enforce any legal right against any other person shall do so by a proceeding to be called an action.
“And under Order 3, rule 1 said ‘every action shall be commenced by writ of summons, to be issued out of the registry, which shall be endorsed with the statement of the nature of the claim made, or the relief or remedy required in the action’.
“The legal right referred to in Order 2 has always, and rightly so, in my opinion, been construed to encompass all rights that are justiciable in a court of law.  As there is no provision that permits a claim such as the appellant’s to be brought in any other way. Their procedure should have been by writ of summons.”
Referring to Vol 37 of Halsbury’s Laws, 4th Edition, paragraph 136, the law is
pellucidly stated as follows:
“Begin proceedings by originating motion. An originating motion is one of the prescribed modes of beginning proceedings. It is to be contrasted with a motion in a pending action, or on an appeal to the Court of Appeal.”
Mc Kay concluded his submissions with this final paragraph: “The failure to commence proceedings by an authorised procedure is not an “irregularity” of the Rules of the High Court. The failure to do so goes to “Jurisdiction”, and is a nullity which cannot be cured by O. 54.”
At the last hearing, the Attorney General was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Nareshwar Harnanan, and Senior Counsel Mr. Ashton Chase.