CHIEF Justice (ag) Ian Chang, in a 33-page ruling yesterday, said Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee has a constitutional right as an elected member of the National Assembly to speak on any matter and that his constituents have a reciprocating right to have their representative in the Parliament speak on their behalf.

Attorney -General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, in explaining the ruling afterwards,  pointed to the  need to put the judgment in its particular perspective regarding the events leading up to the outcome.  
Referring to the announced results of the 2011 National and Regional Elections, Minister Nandlall said the nation had been informed then that there was a new dispensation and that there was not going to be business as usual.
This was displayed in no uncertain terms in the National Assembly, with a host of unprecedented actions and postures being taken and adopted in the House by the Parliamentary Opposition using their one-seat majority, he explained.
Minister Nandlall pointed out that for the first time in Guyana’s history the national budget had been subjected to reductions and cuts by the Joint Opposition. He observed that the issue was taken to court which ruled that the National Assembly had no power to do so, and that the action by the Opposition was unconstitutional.
This was followed by a series of Motions being brought to  Parliament, against which the Government side consistently argued that most violated the law and the Constitution.  Despite the arguments, the numerical strength of the Opposition saw the Government side losing the fight against the Motions which were passed.
One prominent Motion compelled the Minister of Finance to deposit the Lotto funds directly into the Consolidated Fund. A Resolve clause in the same Motion stated that the deposit of the Lottery monies into the Lotto Fund is unlawful and unconstitutional. Minister Nandlall noted that the genesis of the Motion lay in the years of criticism levelled at the Government by the Opposition on the issue.
The issue was taken to  court which ruled that it was perfectly proper and constitutional for monies generated by the lottery to be deposited into the Lotto Fund and dismissed the Opposition’s case.
Thereafter came the move to gag Minister Rohee. Minister Nandlall outlined the importance of understanding that all the actions of the Opposition were being done in a particular context. “The context of a new dispensation and we are not going to have business as usual,” he was quoted by the Government Information Agency (GINA) as saying.
Nandlall reiterated what Government had stated at the start of the 10th Parliament, that the Opposition has been violating the law, trampling upon the Constitution, and assaulting established doctrines of parliamentary procedures and practice.
He pointed out however, that what has been seen unfolding step by step, was that Government has been vindicated.
“The ruling in relation to the gagging of Minister Rohee is just one factor in an entire equation of unprecedented, unlawful and unconstitutional conduct,” he declared.
Minister Nandlall had moved to the High Court challenging the legality of the Order of the Speaker and the Motion filed by the Leader of the Opposition to gag Minister Rohee. In their response, the Opposition raised two objections, the first being that the court has no jurisdiction and the second that the doctrine of Parliamentary Privilege prevents actions of the Parliament from being reviewed by the Court.
The Chief Justice yesterday pronounced on both objections, affirming the position that while Parliament enjoys some degree of sovereignty in its functions and conduct of its affairs, once the Constitution is violated in that process, the jurisdiction of the court is activated.  This gives the court an unquestionable power to inquire into the business of Parliament if there is an allegation that Parliament has violated the law or the Constitution.
The Legal Affairs Minister pointed out that the facts stated in this ruling had been continuously reiterated by the Government since the inception of Parliament and yet the Opposition raised objections to it which the court swiftly overruled.
The second objection was whether the decisions or Acts of Parliament, the Speaker or Leader of the Opposition were protected by the doctrine of Parliamentary Privilege. The court ruled against this.
The minister explained that an examination of this issue by himself revealed that the Parliamentary Privileges which exist in England were never passed on to its colonies, thus the Colonial Assemblies did not enjoy this privilege and had to craft their own immunities, which Guyana had done, only in a limited manner. That is, the only privilege that exists is that whatever is stated in the National Assembly by any member could not be the subject of a libel suit or any similar action.
The Chief Justice then scrutinised the crucial issue of whether Minister Rohee had a right to speak in the National Assembly, and whether the National Assembly can take away the right in the manner it did in terms of the case at hand.
The Chief Justice, in his ruling, clearly stated that “Minister Rohee has a constitutional right as an elected member of the National Assembly to speak on any matter and that as an elected member of the National Assembly, his constituents have a reciprocating right to have their representative in the Parliament speak on their behalf.” Nandlall observed that, as such, there were two sets of rights violated when Minister Rohee was stopped from speaking.
The Chief Justice also noted that the great issue which was made on whether Minister Rohee was speaking in his ministerial capacity which he was prohibited from doing was totally irrelevant.
“It was not because he is Minister of Home Affairs that confers him with the right to speak; it is because he is an elected member of the National Assembly,” Minister Nandlall stated, explaining further the Chief Justice’s analogy which pointed to the fact that a non-ministerial member of the National Assembly could not have his right to speak taken away, but when that same member is given a ministerial portfolio then his right to speak is taken would mean that it is a disadvantage for a Member of Parliament to hold a ministerial portfolio.
The Chief Justice also made the point that the right to speak “is a right which is imbued, enjoyed and conferred upon, not on a minister, but upon an elected Member of the National Assembly, and that right cannot be interfered with by the National Assembly; either by the Speaker or by any committee including the Privileges Committee set up to deal with that issue.”
Importantly, the Chief Justice also said while the Privileges Committee can deal with a legal issue, they could decide on it however they want, but under the Constitution of Guyana, all legal questions are to be conclusively determined by a Court of Law.
“The only authority in the land that has the binding force to determine legal issues is that which is recognised by the Constitution and that body is the Judiciary.”
Minister Nandlall stated therefore that the interpretation of the Chief Justice’s ruling is that if Minister Rohee’s right to speak cannot be taken away by the National Assembly as a whole, it is inconceivable that a smaller component of the National Assembly, (sic the Privileges Committee) would have that power, it would be an exercise in futility.
The minister observed that despite the fact the either side could approach the Chief Justice for further clarification or to continue with the issue, the ruling is perfectly clear: “That Minister Rohee has a right to speak; that his constituency has a right for him to speak on their behalf and the Parliament cannot take away that right from an elected member. That is what we went to court for.”
 
NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION
On the no-confidence motion, Minister Nandlall said the Chief Justice had noted that whether the Opposition had no confidence in Minister Rohee or not, that was immaterial to his right to speak.
Regarding the suggestion that the Parliamentary Opposition could possibly resort to previous actions towards the Minister by way of heckling and other actions when he rises to speak in the National Assembly, Minister Nandlall stated that it would be expected that in light of the court’s ruling, that ruling would be respected.
He added that the issues raised by the opposition of the new dispensation are being used to pursue political agendas.
“We have to recognise that we sit in Parliament to advance the welfare of Guyana and Guyanese, and not to settle personal scores and political agendas,” Nandlall declared.
He stated clearly that the National Assembly is not a political platform but a body “ imbued with the serious responsibility of discussing matters of national interest, that mean something to the people of Guyana and to pass laws to bring peace and good order and governance to our country.”
He expressed the hope that three successive rulings in favour of Government would lead the opposition to re-focus and re-direct their energies towards doing something for the people of the country.