In parliamentary committees composition motion ... Opposition backs down from no jurisdiction argument
Written by George Barclay
Sunday, 25 March 2012 22:03
Source - Guyana Chronicle
MINISTER of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who had moved to the court against the parliamentary opposition, in relation to Parliamentary Committees, told the Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on Friday that the opposition had backed down from its original argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Attorney General said that at the beginning of the hearing the lawyers representing the opposition had as their big argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, but now, after he had cited number of cases in support of his contention to prove that the court had jurisdiction they are now claiming that the motion did not have merit.
Mr. Nandlall, who had cited a number of cases to show that the court has jurisdiction said lawyers for the respondents have reneged from their position and are now, claiming that the motion before the court did not have merit.
Following the court sitting on Friday, Mr. Nandlall said, as a ‘Watchdog’ for the Constitution, he had brought the motion as he was supposed to do whenever the Constitution is violated.
According to him, the lawyers representing the respondents began their arguments, by stating what their major plan was.
Nandlall added: “I have cited several cases to establish beyond any rational doubt that the court has jurisdiction. Now the lawyers are shifting to a different position; they are now saying that the motion has no merit. Now that is a different argument. In the past they were saying that the motion had no jurisdiction now I will have to introduce other arguments and cite other cases in support of the new contention. I will deal with that on the next occasion,” the Attorney General told the Chief Justice at the end of the session on Friday. The next session will begin today.
Asked why he called himself a “Watch dog” the Attorney General explained that “in our constitutional structure he is the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the legal rights of the public and in that capacity the Attorney General has a duty and a responsibility to approach the court whenever the public interest has been threatened or whenever the Constitution is violated”.
Ever since the commencement of the Tenth Parliament the government and the opposition have been diametrically opposed to a number of issues. One issue on the government’s side is the composition of the parliamentary committees which it feels is not being done according to the principle of proportionality.
On March 7 government through the Attorney General moved to the High court to challenge the manner in which those committees are being set up and piloted primarily by the opposition.
Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, at a recent programme on the National Communications Network explained that government’s High Court motion challenges the manner in which the opposition in Parliament is moving in constituting the committees.
“It is contended in the motion on the part of the government that the composition of the committees violates the principle of proportionality.” the Attorney General had said.
In Guyana the electoral system is based on proportionality.
“It is recognised expressly in the constitution and the laws of Guyana …essentially seats are allocated in the National Assembly to the parties that have contested the elections based on the principle of proportionality…the number of votes you get is proportional to the seats that you will receive,” the Attorney General had explained.
He added that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had been allocated 32 seats, while A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has 26 and the Alliance for Change (AFC) seven which is based on and proportionate to the number of votes that they received at the last general elections.
“A mathematical calculation of the percentage of seats in the National Assembly will reveal that the PPP, with its 32 seats, controls 49.2% of the seats in Parliament, which is nearly 50%. As such, it is only fair, logical and constitutional that we get that percentage of representation in the committee stage; that is what the motion seeks to do,” Nandlall contended.
He said the standing orders tell that these committees can consist of not less than 6 and not more than 10 members, therefore the standing orders itself, in recognising the principle of proportionality, has given the National Assembly a degree of flexibility to find a composition that is as close as possible to the make up of the House so as to capture of this national principle.
“We are saying that a size of 10 would best reflect the composition of the National Assembly. PPP would get 5 seats equivalent to its 50% seats, APNU 4 and AFC one.
Because we have 50% of the seats four is not a reflection of the percentage …they are equating us with APNU who has 40% of the seats and there is a 30,000 vote difference between 40% of APNU and 49.2% of the PPP… that is in violation of the proportionality principle which the constitution embraces. That is what we are seeking to rectify in the court hoping that parliament can constitute the committees in a manner that is contemplated, provided for and captured by the constitution,” Attorney General Nandlall had said.
Representing the government at the hearing are Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C., Mr. Nareshwar Harnanan, Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Sohan Poonai, Mr. Manoj Narayan, Mr. Euclin Gomes, Mr. Arun Gajraj, Mr. Sase Gunraj, Mr. Robin Hunt and Mr. Pratish Satram.
Appearing for the parliamentary opposition APNU and AFC is Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S.C. Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, Mr. Roysdale Forde, Mr. Nigel Hughes, Mr. Basil Williams, Mr. Llewellyn John, Mr. Christopher Ram and others.
Last Updated on Sunday, 25 March 2012 22:03
