ATTORNEY-General Anil Nandlall, S.C. and Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance Dr. Ashni Singh have asked the High Court to throw out the case challenging the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill.

Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter had moved to the Court in April claiming that the bill was not properly passed in National Assembly.

Jones and Witter, who is the President of the General Workers Union, through their attorneys Roysdale Forde, S.C, and Selwyn Pieters, are seeking judicial review and relief under the Constitution.

Jones and Witter are asking the court to grant a declaration that the holding and or continuation of proceedings of the National Assembly on the day in question with the use of a replacement Mace without any approved motion to do so, is ultra vires the Constitution, common law, the constitutional values.

The parties are also seeking to have money taken or distributed from the NRF replenished.

The Attorney General, Parliament Office, the Minister of Finance, the Speaker and Clerk of the National Assembly are all listed as respondents.

However, Nandlall and Singh, in their affidavit of defence, which was submitted to Justice Navindra Singh, claim that the NRF Bill was “lawfully, validly and properly” passed in the National Assembly on December 29, 2021.

The pair verily believe that there is insufficient evidence furnished by Jones and Witter to support the challenge.

In the circumstances, they are asking the court to refuse all the orders being sought and challenged, with substantial costs.

“I am advised by my attorneys-at-law, and verily believe that the Natural Resource Fund Act, No.19 of 2021, remains validly passed, and has proper legal effect,” the two respondents said in their affidavit.

Additionally, the pair submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to enforce any provision on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and, in any event, no provision of the said Covenant was contravened as is alleged by Jones and Witter.

Against this background, the two respondents submitted that each and every allegation of violations of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana made and contained in the said challenge is unfounded, specious, misconceived and plainly wrong in law.

“I deny each and every allegation whatsoever that there is any illegality, unconstitutionality or unlawfulness attendant to, or in connection with, the preparation and presentation of the Natural Resource Fund Act, No.19 of 2021, and its approval in the National Assembly,” they said.

Among other things, the two ministers contended that the Parliament Office is not a properly named respondent in the challenge, since the office is not an entity known to the law, has no legal persona, and has no capacity to sue or be sued.

As it relates to the Mace being present for the passing of the Bill, the two respondents submitted that there is no principle known to the law, neither does the Constitution nor the Standing Orders require that the Mace be present, and in place for Parliament to exercise its constitutional power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana.

“… whether the Mace is in place or not, or whether an instrument can be used as a Mace, the purpose of the Mace and matters connected to the proceedings of Parliament and their regularity thereof, are matters over which this court has no jurisdiction, as they constitute procedural matters of Parliament over which the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction, as is evident by Article 165 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana…that in any event, the Mace has no relevance and place in the exercise of Parliament’s constitutional power and authority to make laws,” they added.

The case comes up before Justice Singh on September 12, 2022 for oral presentations.

The Guyana Chronicle had previously reported that on December 29, 2021, in a bid to defend the landmark Bill, which has since been assented to by President Dr. Irfaan Ali, Dr. Singh was interrupted by what was referred to as the unparliamentary actions of members of the opposition.

The second reading of the Bill was objected to by Jones, who requested that it be sent to a special select committee. However, the Speaker of the National Assembly Manzoor Nadir indicated his preference to listening to the arguments from both sides, before determining whether or not the Bill should be sent to a select committee.

Minister Singh then took to the podium, but his presentation was interrupted by members of the APNU+AFC Opposition, who kept banging their desks and chanting demeaning words about the Bill.

After they failed to prevent Minister Singh from speaking, Opposition parliamentarian Annette Ferguson attempted to remove the Mace, but was unsuccessful.
This unprecedented act was foiled by Nadir’s personal assistant, who held the instrument tightly as he laid on the floor of the conference centre.