December 11 ,2020
Oneidge Walrond
-court finds appointment as MP, minister was unlawful
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George yesterday found that Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce Oneidge Walrond was not lawfully appointed due to her dual citizenship and Attorney General Anil Nandlall said the government has already moved to correct what he called an “error of law,” including her secret reappointment as minister.
Prior to Nandlall’s disclosure yesterday that President Irfaan Ali had reappointed Walrond on December 1st, there had been no announcement made by the government and Ali had said he was comfortable with her actions in relinquishing her American citizenship in order to serve. Nandlall also indicated yesterday that she would be sworn in as a Member of Parliament (MP) at the next sitting of the National Assembly as an unelected member.
Ahead of a scheduled hearing yesterday morning on a challenge to Walrond’s membership in the National Assembly, Nandlall applied for an extension to file an affidavit in defence in which the minister admitted that she was advised by an expert on US laws that the loss of nationality only takes effect at a time when the applicant takes an oath/affirmation of renunciation. She had previously maintained that it was her belief that as technocrat minister, the constitutional provision barring dual citizens from being elected as MPs did not apply to her but she nevertheless went through the process of relinquishing her American citizenship.
It has been established based on a copy of the certificate to confirm her renunciation of her American citizenship that Walrond voluntarily performed the act of expatriation to relinquish her US citizenship on September 4th—after she was already sworn as an MP and minister.
Rectify
At the hearing yesterday, Nandlall conceded that the appointment of Minister Walrond was not done in compliance with the constitution but added that efforts were being made to rectify the breach and he mentioned her reappointment at the start of the month.
He mentioned the manner in which the events unfolded and added that there were doubts as to the effects of the laws of the United States and that the stages of having one’s citizenship relinquished was not relatively clear as it is a “staged process.”
However, attorney Roysdale Forde, who is representing opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, who initiated the challenge to Walrond’s appointment, stated that it seemed as if Nandlall was conceding that the appointment was not in compliance with the constitution and asked if he was prepared to concede to the order sought in the application.
In addition to seeking declarations that Walrond is an illegal member of the 12th Parliament and was also unlawfully appointed as a minister of government, Jones also asked that the court order the Speaker of the House to prevent her from sitting in and or participating in the business of the National Assembly.
Nandlall told the court that it was not necessary to concede because the affidavits spoke for themselves.
Justice George reminded Nandlall that he stated that the appointment was not done in compliance with the constitution and had said at the earliest opportunity it was rectified.
Justice George then asked about the implications for the period from September 1st to her reappointment if Walrond was appointed minister and a member of the Cabinet with effect from December 1st, 2020.
Justice George added that while she was not heading in the direction of active action, she was seeking clarity to understand if Walrond was not properly appointed during the period in question, whether it would mean that she would have to be sworn in again as a Member of Parliament.
Nandlall then stated that Walrond would have to take the oath since the first oath was not properly taken.
Justice George then asked if another oath was taken and Nandlall said it was done upon appointment though he later indicated that the oath was in fact ceremonial.
However, Justice George disagreed and noted that it could not have been entirely ceremonial.
Nandlall then stated that since the identified wrong has been remedied, an order was not necessary. He also asked that the court take into consideration the fact that the government did not waste the court’s time.
Forde then pointed out to the court that the application deals with the period prior to the 1st of December. He told the court that given the circumstances, he saw no explanation or rationale why the order pursued in the application should not be granted.
Not lawful
Justice George subsequently ruled that the Walrond was not a lawful member of the National Assembly nor was her initial appointment as minister lawful.
Forde, however, asked for costs and stated that valuable court time was utilized to institute the court proceedings and further added that the circumstance did not require any complex analysis to determine that Walrond was not a lawful member of the National Assembly at the time.
He stated that his team had sought privately and through the National Assembly to prevent the need for involving the court but they were rejected publicly and humiliated.
He further added that there was no statement by Nandlall informing him of the changed position. As a result, he said since the process had to be instituted it required costs to be rewarded.
The judge then stated that she would award costs in the sum of $75,000.
Prior to the challenge being filed in Jones’ name, the main opposition coalition APNU+AFC had called, among other things, for Walrond’s resignation.
Walrond had publicly stated that she had renounced her US citizenship since August 27th before taking the oath of office as an MP on September 1st and had subsequently received the Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Her certificate of renunciation, a copy of which was released by Parliament Office, bore an approval date of September 8th, while also indicating that Walrond voluntarily performed the act of expatriation to relinquish her US citizenship on September 4th—after she was already sworn as an MP. She took the oath of office of a Minister of Government on August 5th.
When questioned about this, Walrond had maintained her stance. “I repeat that the legal standard is that the citizen ought to have done all that was in her power to renounce, which is what I did by indicating to the Consular on the 18th of August that I have renounced. I was informed that there is an administrative procedure that I have to follow in order to receive my certificate, which is what I received on the 4th of September,” she explained
Walrond previously said she had done “nothing illegal” and will continue to sit in the National Assembly since she did “all that is within her power” to renounce her American citizenship before she was sworn in as an MP.
“…I am confident that I have done everything that was in my power to act morally [and] that the attempt to demerge my character has not gone unnoticed by the public. I am convinced that I have full legal right to sit in the National Assembly and that I have done nothing illegal and that I will continue to sit in the Assembly as a legal representative,” Walrond previously told reporters on the sidelines of an event held at the Marriott Hotel.
