JUSTICE Nareshwar Harnanan yesterday upheld the jurisdictional objection made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo disputing the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine an Application filed by Opposition Members of Parliament, Christopher Jones and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, which was seeking a declaration that Bharrat Jagdeo’s seat had become vacant in the National Assembly.

On February 8, 2024, Jones and Sarabo-Halley filed an application asking the court for a number of declaratory reliefs. They alleged in the Application that for 11 consecutive sittings of the National Assembly within a period of two consecutive months, Vice President Jagdeo was absent from the National Assembly and has consequently vacated his seat–the consequence being that Jagdeo could no longer hold office as a Member of Parliament and/or the Vice-president.

However, on April 23, 2024, Jagdeo filed a Notice of Application disputing the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the Fixed Date Application.
In the proceedings yesterday, the Attorney General and the Speaker of the National Assembly both made submissions in writing, supporting the Application filed by Jagdeo. “They contended that the absence of a member of the National Assembly is part of the internal proceedings of the National Assembly

and that by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (the rights, privileges and immunities of Parliament), these matters are exclusively for the determination of Parliament.”
As such, barring only a constitutional breach, the court, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, is precluded from enquiring into such matters.

Therefore, the court, in its ruling agreed with the 2023 decision of Younge J, in Tabitha Sarabo Halley, Mp et al v. AG the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly (FDA- 994/2022), that when it comes to the internal operations of the National Assembly, it is the National Assembly that is vested with the exclusive control over the management of its own proceedings, subject only to the Constitution.

The Judge affirmed that Parliament must have the freedom and functional independence to conduct its business and the court ruled that the vacation of a member’s seat in Parliament occurs by operation of law, but it does not necessarily follow that the Speaker has no prior role or function. The Standing Orders which govern and regulate the internal proceedings of Parliament, must be applied, interpreted and enforced by the National Assembly.

In the circumstances, the court was of the view that the question of whether Bharrat Jagdeo’s seat in the National Assembly had become vacant has not arisen.
As such, as a consequence of the objection being upheld, the court dismissed the case filed by Jones and Sarabo-Halley and granted costs in the sum of $250,000 to each Respondent, namely the Attorney General of Guyana, the Speaker of the National Assembly and Vice-president, Jagdeo.