Hearing into challenge to NRF Bill commences
Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, S.C.
Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, S.C.

HIGH Court Judge, Navindra Singh, on Monday, commenced a hearing into the challenge to the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill, which was filed by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter.

The duo moved to the court in April claiming that the bill was not properly passed in the National Assembly in December 2021, due to the absence of the parliamentary Mace.

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

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, Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, was interrupted by what was referred to as the unparliamentary actions of members of the opposition.

Opposition Parliamentarian and Attorney-at Law, Khemraj Ramjattan

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 for 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, an 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.

Trade unionist, Norris Witter

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.

During the commencement of the civil action at the Demerara High Court, Opposition Parliamentarian and Attorney-at-Law Khemraj Ramjattan and Witter testified.

Ramjattan, when cross-examined by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall S.C, admitted that some APNU+AFC Members of Parliament (MPs), who were not in support of the Bill did blow whistles, walked around, and were not in their seats.

He told the court that he remained in his seat as everything unfolded.

However, when the AG asked the attorney other questions as it related to that incident, Ramjattan either replied that he could not recall or didn’t give a direct response.

Ramjattan had to rely on video recordings of what transpired that day. The recordings were later tendered as exhibits in the case.

Witter was the next witness to be called, but Nandlall objected on the ground that most of what is in his statement amounts to “hearsay evidence” and was “inadmissible”.

Justice Singh upheld Nandlall’s objections and stopped Witter’s testimony.

The judge then adjourned the matter to November 8, for the continuation of Witter’s testimony. He also reserved November 9, for Jones to take the stand and give his evidence.

Nandlall and Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, had asked the High Court to throw out the case.

In their affidavit of defence, which was submitted to Justice Navindra Singh, they claimed 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.

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.

As it relates to the Mace being present for the passing of the Bill, the two respondents submitted that there is no principle known in 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 governance 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,” Nandlall said in his affidavit of defence.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.