– Nandlall says, notes amendment ‘sub judice’ as case remains before High Court

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, S.C., has questioned the legality and propriety of a draft Bill submitted by Opposition Member of Parliament, Terrence Campbell, to amend the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act, describing the move as a breach of parliamentary procedure and a violation of long-established constitutional principles.
Speaking on his weekly programme Issues in the News, Nandlall said he recently received from the Clerk of the National Assembly a draft document titled Natural Resource Fund (Amendment) Bill 2025, signed by Campbell and dated 3 November 2025.
According to the Attorney General, the proposed amendment seeks to alter Section 16 of the NRF Act 2021 — a section that is currently at the centre of legal proceedings brought by Mr Campbell himself against the Attorney General and the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance. He noted that the case remains before the High Court and was last heard by then Acting Chief Justice Roxane George, S.C.
“The National Assembly cannot proceed to debate or deal with a matter if that matter is sub judice — meaning it is pending before the court. That rule is one grounded in the doctrine of the separation of powers and is clearly set out in Standing Order 41(2). It is at the discretion of the Speaker to determine whether a matter is sub judice, but Speakers have consistently upheld this principle without exception over the years,” he said.
Nandlall pointed out that the Standing Orders, which regulate the National Assembly, have existed since Independence and were inherited from the colonial legislature. Over the decades, they have survived successive changes of administration — including the APNU+AFC Government from 2015 to 2020 — without any significant alterations.
“I say that because I don’t want to open myself to the criticism that the PPP made these Standing Orders recently,” he said, adding, “These Standing Orders have been in force since Guyana became an independent state.”
The Attorney General argued that by seeking to amend the very provision he is challenging in the courts, the Opposition parliamentarian is effectively trying to prosecute his case simultaneously in two separate arms of government.
“The Constitution itself does not contemplate that, does not provide for that, and will not permit that. Had he gone before two courts on the same issue, one court would have held that the process constituted an abuse of the process of the court. For want of being repetitive, the same principle applies to Parliament,” he stated.
The Minister further described the proposed amendment as stylistic rather than substantive, contending that it adds nothing new to the law.
He noted that Section 16(2) of the existing Act already provides that withdrawals from the Natural Resource Fund must be deposited into the Consolidated Fund and used only to finance national development priorities, including initiatives aimed at achieving an inclusive green economy or responding to major natural disasters.
As such, Nandlall told viewers that when the existing legislation and the proposed amendment are examined side by side, they say the same thing in slightly different language.
“You cannot expect the government to support amendments that make no material difference to the legislation it drafted and passed,” he remarked.
He went on to describe the attempt as an abuse of the parliamentary process and as insulting to any government that values proper procedure.
“You can’t get twelve seats in Parliament and want to dictate to the government that they must support you to make changes — you’re saying the same thing,” he said.
The Attorney General noted that, in his view, the proposed amendments should not see the light of day — both because they contravene Standing Order 41(2) and because they lack legislative merit.
“Quite apart from the prohibition imposed by the Standing Order, the purported amendments themselves lack merit. It’s almost an abuse of the parliamentary process and would be insulting to any government that this amendment is inviting to review its legislation but make no serious changes to it. It abysmally fails to meet the required standard, and it is prohibited by the relevant Standing Orders,” Nandlall noted.