– highlights party’s unparliamentary behaviour, failed cases

THE Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, strongly criticised the recent legal challenge against Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, by A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) as an unfounded “fishing expedition.”

Christopher Jones, an Opposition Member of Parliament (MP), along with Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, represented by Roysdale Forde, SC, filed a motion in the High Court asserting that Dr Jagdeo’s seat in the National Assembly should be vacated based on his frequent absences from parliamentary sessions.

Nandlall, on Tuesday, during his programme ‘Issues in the News’ vehemently dismissed the challenge as “frivolous and vexatious”, suggesting it was merely a political manoeuvre by the opposition.

“This is another frivolous unmeritorious, and vexatious action filed by the Opposition and hopefully, will be regarded as such by the court after hearing all the submissions,” Nandlall articulated, stressing the case’s lack of merit.

The Attorney-General accused the opposition of engaging in a pattern of legal challenges against the government that consistently fail in court, a trend he claims dates back beyond 2015.

“Every political action they have filed, not since 2020, but I think since 2015, and even before have failed in the court system, every single one of them,” he noted, casting doubt on the opposition’s legal acumen and intentions.
Highlighting what he perceives as hypocrisy, Nandlall pointed out the opposition’s own frequent absences from Parliament, challenging the basis of their lawsuit against Jagdeo.

“Now, I am of the view that there is no other grouping of members of parliament in the democratic world who are absent more frequently from the National Assembly than this grouping [APNU+AFC] constituting the opposition in Guyana’s Parliament,” he stated, inviting scrutiny of parliamentary attendance records worldwide.

The Attorney-General did not mince words in his critique of the opposition’s parliamentary behaviour, accusing them of neglecting their duties while focusing on trivial pursuits.

“They come either at the beginning of the sitting, they eat, and then they disappear. Or they come at a time when there is food; they eat, they spend a few minutes in the parliament, and they disappear,” he observed, painting a picture of opposition members more interested in perks than participation.

Nandlall’s commentary extended beyond attendance issues, delving into the opposition’s historical actions and rhetoric around democracy, the rule of law, and constitutional adherence.
He accused them of violating these principles themselves while attempting to hold others accountable.

“And you know, of your track record, both in and out of government, of violating the constitution, of trampling upon the rule of law, of attempting to steal elections and stealing elections in the past,” he charged, highlighting a contradiction in their public stance versus their actions.

Recalling specific instances of misconduct by opposition members in Parliament, such as disruptive behaviour and attempts to physically interfere with parliamentary proceedings, Nandlall underscored the inconsistency between their claims to moral and behavioural superiority and their actual conduct.

“And just remember the 29th of December 2022, when they were whining and gyrating in the parliament, singing and blowing whistles, and when they attempted to steal the mace, they broke the mace and ran away with it,” he recounted, questioning the opposition’s credibility in lecturing on parliamentary propriety.

The lawsuit against Jagdeo, according to Nandlall, is not just an isolated legal challenge but part of a broader political strategy driven by fear and opposition to Jagdeo’s influence.

“And once again, they are demonstrating the morbid fear of Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, they are demonstrating their morbid fear for this gentleman. So, they want to get him out of the parliament,” he explained, suggesting the opposition’s actions are motivated by political rather than legal considerations.

Nandlall explained that it was only political manoeuvring from the opposition rather than a genuine concern for constitutional adherence and governance.