— High Court throws out Ram’s challenge to hike in tendering threshold

CHIEF Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on Friday condemned claims by Attorney Christopher Ram that the issuance of contracts by the APNU+AFC administration in excess of $15M was illegal.

Ram, represented by Attorney Anil Nandlall, had filed a Fixed Date Application (FDA) early last month, seeking several High Court declarations.

Among the declarations was any procurement in excess of $15 million approved by a purported Cabinet is unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void, and is of no legal effect.
Ram also wanted the court to issue an order restraining permanent secretaries within all government ministries from making any payment towards any contracts in excess of $15 million approved by a purported Cabinet.

The grounds of Ram’s claims stemmed from the passage of the no-confidence motion against the government last December.

He outlined in the FDA that Section 54 (1) of the Procurement Act gives Cabinet the right to review and approve all contracts in excess of $15 million. However, due to the passage of the no-confidence motion, Ram said, in his application, that Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana provides that: “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence”.

Due to the aforementioned, Ram concluded that the Cabinet was purported, hence, no authority to issue contracts.

However, after the State’s Affidavit in Response was filed, Attorney Rajendra Jaigobin from the firm of Mohabir A. Nandlall and Associates, applied to withdraw and discontinue the claims of Ram.

It was then the learned Chief Justice asserted that the claim was absolutely without merit and ought not to have been filed since the role of the Cabinet in procurement matters had ceased with the introduction of the Procurement Commission by the legislature.

The Chief Justice pointed out that the applicant selectively referenced section 54(1) of the Procurement Act, but failed to also reference section 54 (6) which prescribes: “Cabinet’s involvement under this section shall cease upon the Constitution of the Public Procurement Commission except in relation to those matters referred to in sub-section (1) which are pending.”

This was the very stance of the government when the issue of illegality was raised by the Opposition.
The Deputy Chairman of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board, (NPTAB) Mark Bender had publicly said that the recent issues raised by the Opposition about the legality of the move to increase thresholds are extraneous.

He had said the sections of the Procurement Act being referred to by the Opposition are irrelevant to the issue at hand. He said the thresholds for methods of procurement are contained in the regulations of the Procurement Act.

However, Section 61 of the Act states as follows: “The minister shall, with the advice of the National Board or the Procurement Commission, make any regulation that may be necessary for the administration of this Act.”

“I submit, therefore, that the increase in the thresholds is legal,” Bender reaffirmed.
In addition to condemning the claims, the Chief Justice ordered that a cost of $300,000 be paid by Ram for filing a completely unmeritorious claim.
The State was represented by the Attorney General Chambers.