COME December 8, High Court Judge Damone Younge is expected to hand down her ruling on whether or not she has the jurisdiction to hear the case filed by eight A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Members of Parliament (MPs) who are challenging their suspension from the National Assembly.

The suspended MPs are Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, Ganesh Mahipaul, and Maureen Philadelphia.

It was on July 21 during the 48th Sitting of the National Assembly that the House officially approved the report of the Committee of Privileges, which recommended that they be suspended for their involvement in desecrating the Speaker’s Mace in December 2021.

On December 29, during the debate on the Natural Resources Fund Bill, chaos broke out at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) at Liliendaal, where the National Assembly was sitting. The Opposition MPs were at the time attempting to prevent Senior Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh from speaking.

During the commotion, MP Ferguson attempted to steal the Speaker’s Mace, and was joined by some of her colleagues.

Following the mayhem, a Motion tabled by Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira was passed in the National Assembly in January 2022 for the eight elected officials to be referred to the Privileges Committee for their actions.

The Privileges Committee later presented a report that recommended that MPs Ferguson, Philadelphia and Jordan be suspended for six consecutive sittings for committing serious violations in removing the Parliamentary Mace from its rightful position.

The report also recommended that Sarabo-Halley be suspended for six consecutive sittings, while it recommended that Jones, Duncan, Singh-Lewis and Mahipaul be suspended from four consecutive sittings.

The suspended MPs later filed a court matter challenging the disciplinary action meted out. In addition to the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly Manzoor Nadir and the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs were named as defendants.

Last Friday, Justice Young, heard arguments from Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C., and ANPU lawyer, Roysdale Forde, S.C., on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

Nandlall submitted that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that Parliament is empowered by the Constitution to function independently.

“There’s a whole body of law, supported by case law authorities which say that when Parliament exercises its function, it should not be inquired into by the Court of Law. It is not that Parliament is supreme; the Constitution is supreme, but Parliament must function within the Constitution. So, the only wrongdoing that Parliament can commit is a violation of the Constitution. So, this case raises all those issues,” he argued.

Nandlall said that consistent with the doctrine of privileges conferred upon parliamentarians for their own protection, the Speaker of the National Assembly is empowered to preside over breaches of privileges and impose sanctions.

However, Forde contended that the Attorney-General, the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly have failed to establish that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

According to Forde, the application was filed under Article 153 (1) of the Constitution for constitutional relief on the ground that this clients constitutional rights have been contravened.

“It is submitted that Articles 153 (1) and particularly 153 (2) of the Constitution clearly confer jurisdiction on the High Court to hear and determine any application made by a person in pursuance of the preceding paragraph,” Forde said.

He further contended that the court’s jurisdiction is activated whenever a proceeding is filed at the High Court raising the contravention of a human right which requires the court to determine whether the Legislature operated and upheld such rights.

Last month, the Full Court denied an application by Forde, challenging Justice Young refusal to grant an interim conservatory order to allow the eight suspended MPs to attend sittings of the National Assembly, and to receive their salaries.

The Full Court ruled that the “appeal was ‘premature’, given that no decision was made by the High Court below that can properly be made the subject of an appeal.”