– Court says ‘no’ to request for judge’s recusal in NRF case

OPPOSITION Chief Whip, Christopher Jones, admitted to the court on Wednesday that the behaviour of parliamentarians from the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) during the December 2021 debate on the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill was defiant of Orders by Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir.

Jones made this disclosure while answering a series of rigorous questions from Attorney General Anil Nandlall S.C., when the hearing into the challenge of the NRF Bill continued before Justice Navindra Singh at the Demerara High Court.

Jones and trade unionist, Norris Witter, had moved to the court in April claiming that the Bill was not properly passed in the National Assembly last December, due to the absence of the Speaker’s ceremonial Mace.

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

The Guyana Chronicle had previously reported that, on December 29, 2021, while speaking on 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 APNU+AFC.

The second reading of the Bill was objected to during that time 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 who kept banging their desks and chanting demeaning words about the Bill.

After they failed to prevent Senior Minister Singh from speaking, an APNU+AFC parliamentarian, Annette Ferguson then went for the Mace. It was a parliament staff who challenged the APNU+AFC rabble-rousers.

In the court on Wednesday, Jones and Witter, through their attorneys, Roysdale Forde, S.C, and Selwyn Pieters, were citing constitutional grounds for their case.
During the court hearing for the civil action in his name, Jones was grilled by the AG on the events which unfolded in December 2021. He admitted that APNU+AFC MPs blew whistles, left their seats, and paraded around the dome of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), where Sittings of the National Assembly have been held.

He said Khemraj Ramjattan, now-leader of the AFC, remained in his seat. The trial will continue on December 9.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Attorney Pieters had made a preliminary application asking for Justice Singh to remove himself from presiding over the trial.

Pieter contended that Justice Singh refused to shake his hands when they were being introduced in the Judge’s chambers on Tuesday.

He argued that Justice Singh is “biased” toward him and his client has “no confidence” in having a fair trial.

Pieters’ also claimed that Singh’s behaviour towards him was “hostile” since he did not allow him to appear virtually via the ZOOM for previous hearings of the case
However, when Justice Singh inquired from Pieters if he had made an application to the court to appear virtually, Pieters informed him that that request was made to the Judge’s clerk.

This led the Judge to further inform Pieters that as a formality, an application would have to be made to appear virtually, especially in in-person civil cases before him.

The AG also agreed with the Judge’s reasoning and expressed his disappointment in the way Pieters had chosen to ventilate the issue.

“It could have been done much more civilly and elegantly… the law is very clear upon what grounds one can allege bias… and upon what grounds a tribunal can recuse itself,” the AG said.

He added that such an allegation against a sitting judge is “serious” and added that Pieters’ arguments lacked proper basis especially since what happened in the Judge’s chambers is “completely irrelevant” to the case before the court.

“I don’t see any basis whatsoever for the allegation to be made and no basis for it to be sustained,” Nandlall said as he urged the judge to dismiss Pieters’ application.

The judge, in his ruling, declared that Pieters’ contentions were meritless since there was no clear demonstration of bias.