LEGAL representative for the Government of Guyana, Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall yesterday stated that Government welcomes the announcement that Speaker of the National Assembly Honourable Raphael Trotman will file an appeal against the ruling of the Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang.
CJ Chang had ruled last week that

the Opposition’s measure of preventing Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly was unconstitutional.
M

Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall

Minister Clement Rohee

SPEAKER’S CONTRADICTION
In mid-November, Mr Trotman had ruled that there was nothing in the laws of Guyana, the Constitution or the Standing Orders of the National Assembly that prevents Minister Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly. This ruling clearly contradicted itself since it also included the prohibition against the Minister from presenting any legislation or making any presentations with respect to his Ministerial portfolio.
Addressing this contradiction with the current events, Minister Nandlall stated, “From the first ruling that the Honourable Speaker made, nothing has changed, and there still seems to be a reluctance to accept the legal position that an elected member of the National Assembly can speak on 

Raphael Trotman

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
Meanwhile, totally ignoring the ruling of the court, the Parliamentary majority of the combined Opposition maintains the move towards the Privileges Committee to address the issue.
Minister Nandlall observed that it is the Speaker who has control over the National Assembly and the responsibility to ensure that members enjoy their legal right to speak there. “That responsibility cannot be transferred to another agency. It resides exclusively with the Honourable Speaker.”
He added that whatever was going to be determined by that Committee would be irrelevant since “the buck stops with the Honourable Speaker, to allow and to ensure that members of the National Assembly enjoy the right which the law and the constitution gives to them to speak in the National Assembly and to represent their constituents there.”

SPEAKER’S RESPONSE
Minister Nandlall also observed that there has not yet been any definitive pronouncement on the Speaker’s initial response that he would be the one to decide whether Minister Rohee speaks or not. He explained that Government would have to collectively make a decision if the Speaker, having regard to the pronouncements to the CJ, will inhibit Minister Rohee from speaking on matters pertaining to the Home Affairs Ministry.
The other eventuality, on which Government would have to make a decision, would be if Mr. Trotman does allow the Minister to speak on ministerial issues and the subsequent negative response of the Opposition.
“Based on those two eventualities, Government will have to assess what options are available and what recourse to pursue,” he said.
Minister Nandlall noted that it was regrettable that the CJ’s ruling is being made to be ambiguous and equivocal. He finds it incomprehensible that the ruling is being misunderstood and complicated.
“The opposition, APNU, has plucked out conveniently, statements from the ruling that would tend to support their political position, and that is wrong in principle and does not do justice to the ruling,” the Minister said.
“I am bewildered by some of the statements attributed to the Honourable Speaker that I misrepresented certain facts in the Court documents,” he said.
The AG pointed to the fact that the Speaker had three lawyers appearing for him in the courts who were granted leave on several occasions to file an affidavit in response to the contention advanced in his Notice of Motion. No Affidavit was filed. He noted that such an affidavit would have given them the opportunity to take issue with any matter that they claim “consists of a misrepresentation”.
The AG noted that in relation to his functions relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Minister Rohee was gagged. “That is a fact of public notoriety, and it was in relation to that gag that the Government approached the court and the court ruled clearly that that gag is unconstitutional.”

PLAYING POLITICS
The deliberate misinterpretation of the CJ’s ruling by the Parliamentary Opposition, considering the abundance of legal minds available is a distinct show of ‘playing politics’, the Minister stated.
he noted that the ruling has been written and distributed in English language; it has been distributed to the press. The latter read the ruling and reported what the ruling said, but it is only the opposition that seems to be confused about the ruling. “All the press reports which I have read, prior to the reports coming from the opposition, were very clear in their coverage of the ruling, that the gag which was placed on Minister Rohee was unconstitutional,” Minister Nandlall declared.
He however, noted that the fact that the Speaker has not stated definitively and clearly, that notwithstanding the clear language of the ruling, that Minister Rohee has the right to speak in the National Assembly on any matter, including matters which fall under his portfolio as Home Affairs Minister is worrying.

COURT’S JURISDICTION
“Although the High Court has ruled on three successive occasions that it has jurisdiction to enquire into the business of Parliament upon an allegation that the Constitution is violated, these rulings do not seem to have settled the issue in relation to the undoubted power of the Court to review the actions of organs of State for their Constitutional compliance. This is the precise issue upon which the Honourable Speaker wishes to appeal, although this is a trite and settled legal position in the entire Commonwealth. I nevertheless welcome the decision to appeal. Hopefully, it will bring greater clarity to those in whose mind this axiomatic legal principle is unclear,” the AG declared.