Court closer to ruling on challenge to Parliamentary Committee of Selection
Attorney General Anil Nandlall
Defence lawyers presented arguments to demonstrate that the motion filed by the Attorney General is bad in law and that the court has no jurisdiction to determine what should obtain in Parliament.
The defence is contending that the constitution provides no jurisdiction to deal with proportionality or any issue relating to the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection.
The issue of proportionality is not dealt with in the constitution or dealt with specifically in the standing order. As a result, Attorney General Anil Nandlall moved to the courts when the combined opposition with its one-seat majority moved to alter the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection.
In the past, the Committee had a five-four-one composition with five seats to the government, four to the People’s National Congress Reform and one to the Alliance for Change. With the new parliamentary dispensation, the opposition is seeking to implement a four-four-one composition.
Chief Justice Ian Chang
Chief Justice Ian Chang is closer to deliver his ruling. Yesterday he gave Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, one week to submit his written reply to the submissions made by defence lawyers who are representing Opposition Leader David Granger and Raphael Trotman, in his position as Speaker of the National Assembly and head of the Alliance For Change list.
This occurred as the state’s motion on the composition of the committees of selection continued in the court yesterday.
Submissions were made by senior counsel Rex McKay for Granger, Khemraj Ramjattan for Trotman as leader of the AFC list, and Roysdale Forde for Trotman as Speaker of the National Assembly. The lawyers’ arguments contained a common thread that the motion filed by the attorney general is bad in law and as such the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the motion as filed by the attorney general.
They supported their arguments using the Constitution and the parliamentary standing order. They were also as one that there was no breach of the constitution.
Ramjattan said that the Committee of Selection was and is in accordance with the standing order and the constitution. He pointed to the court that standing order 94 speaks to standing committees and sessional committees. The committees of selection are standing committees while the select committees are sessional committees that expire with the life of the parliament.
Forde added that proportionality is built in the standing order, and that the state was seeking to have the court rule to have the standing order usurp the constitution. He concluded that the motion brought by the Attorney General is without jurisdiction and should be dismissed forthwith.
In the absence of the attorney general from yesterday’s proceedings, Deputy Solicitor General Naresh Harnanan stood for the state.
Chief Justice Ian Chang said that if as the opposing side is saying and this is supported by article 162, 163 and 165 of the constitution, that such numbers of the select committees of the National Assembly are determined by the National Assembly and that is repeated at article 160, then it would seem that it is the National Assembly that would have to determine the composition.
He pointed out that if the constitution says it is the National Assembly, it cannot turn around and say the constitution must fix it. He added that it would seem that the power lies in the province of the National Assembly. And if it lies within the ambit of the national assembly and a majority of the members so voted, clearly it is a matter for the National Assembly, he added.
He said that the issue of proportionality according to party would be negated, since the constitution allows for the election of non-members of the National Assembly to the select committees. Proportional representation, he said, is not spoken for by the constitution in the committees.
Harnanan requested and got a week for the Attorney General to submit his response.