1. The parties/Locus Standi: The Speaker is the principal servant of the House and as a sitting member of the Assembly cannot be subject to legal proceedings for official acts done in the Chamber. The precincts of Parliament are governed exclusively by Parliament. He is not a proper party. Additionally, the AG may only bring suit on behalf of the affected agencies in their own individual official capacities. For example, only GINA through the AG can institute proceedings about its budget cuts and only after the cuts have been duly enacted as signified by Presidential assent and the affixing of the State Seal to said Act.

2. Separation of Powers Doctrine: Parliament is composed of both the President and the National Assembly, not just the Assembly. Parliament cannot be Parliament without the Sovereign who is in this case the Executive President. Guyana has NO separation of powers. The position of Ramotar is directly analogous to the Queen vis a vis the UK Houses of Parliament. The President and the entire Cabinet all sit in Parliament rendering the Separation of Powers doctrine inapplicable. It is a convenient American import for this singular case. It is alien to the pedigree of the Guyanese Parliament from its English patrial origins in the 1200s to its local patriation of sovereign powers in the Guyana Independence Act 1966 and the Independence Order-in-Council issued by Her Majesty-in-Council.

3. Basis of Relief: Parliament is immune from this kind of suit as there is no writ available to grant relief from an Act still in the Bill stage. In order for an Act of Parliament to be unconstitutional, it must first pass the National Assembly and then receive the assent of the President. Only then is a Bill an Act. And relief can only be granted from an Act.

4. There is no "live" justiciable controversy between the parties. There are only theoretical controversies. In the common law, this cannot be a basis for declaratory judgment much less relief.