Opposition back peddles
– claims changing Parliamentary Committees make up a mere irregularity – AG
Georgetown, GINA, March 30, 2012
Press statements sent out this week by the main Opposition party A Partnership for National Unity is an attempt at back peddling from their original proposition which was that the Court had no jurisdiction over Parliament and the National Assembly. The APNU statements reflected the ruling of Chief Justice Ian Chang and also stated that the steps taken by the Parliamentary Opposition in no way violated the Constitution of Guyana.
The Parliamentary Opposition, which has a one seat majority in the National Assembly, had made steps to change the composition of Parliamentary Committees in favour of the opposition. The Government sought redress from the Court stating that this action by the Opposition violated the Constitution.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the principal objection raised in the Court against the motion by Government, was that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the proceedings or the procedures of Parliament. He noted that this objection stated clearly the Opposition’s view that the business of Parliament is beyond the reach of the Court.
That objection has however, been overruled by the Court, which stated very clearly that it has the power, the responsibility and the duty to review any aspects of Parliament’s business to enquire whether the Constitution has been contravened.
Minister Nandlall stated that the release sent out this week, “is an attempt at back peddling from their original proposition which was that the court had no jurisdiction. That is the first proposition they advanced. The second proposition was that assuming the court has jurisdiction, the Court ought not to enquire into this particular matter, which is the composition of the committees, because according to them, it is a mere irregularity and it does not violate the constitution.”
He explained that in terms of jurisdiction, the opposition is now claiming that the court will not have the jurisdiction to enquire into a mere irregularity, “that is what they are saying. Its just because the Court has overruled their principal submission, they are now back peddling in an attempt to modify what they have originally submitted to the court,” the Minister said.
He noted however, that the Chief Justice has made it very clear that he has recorded accurately what the objections were, “and the Chief Justice has not recanted from his recording from what their submissions were. It remains a question of jurisdiction.”
