Attorney General & Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall at a press conference following the announcement of Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman’s ruling said he is fortified in his belief that there is indeed a serious conceptual difficulty in understanding the constitutionally defined role of the National Assembly having regard to its functions and responsibilities.
“In our constitution, the court is the final arbiter (judge) of matters of law and in terms of interpreting the constitution…though it is argued that this Chief Justice’s ruling was not a final ruling, in my humble view that does not in any form or fashion, cause that ruling to lose its efficacy…that institution called the judiciary, under our constitutional construct is the final arbiter on what the constitution says and what is means,” the AG explained.
On one hand the court ruled that that in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana, the National Assembly has no power to cut the estimates; while on the other hand, the legislature (National Assembly) proceeded to pronounce that it has the power to cut in face of a court ruling.
Minister Nandlall called that situation “a complete and utter confusion” since the Parliament is saying one thing, while the court, which is the guardian of the constitution, is saying another.
“That is the conundrum that we find ourselves in…the situation will be compounded further if the Chief Justice is to rule finally on this matter…this will be in collision with the pronouncements made by the Speaker…can the executive take the position that it is not going to be bound by the court?” he questioned.
“In our constitution, the court is the final arbiter (judge) of matters of law and in terms of interpreting the constitution…though it is argued that this Chief Justice’s ruling was not a final ruling, in my humble view that does not in any form or fashion, cause that ruling to lose its efficacy…that institution called the judiciary, under our constitutional construct is the final arbiter on what the constitution says and what is means,” the AG explained.
On one hand the court ruled that that in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana, the National Assembly has no power to cut the estimates; while on the other hand, the legislature (National Assembly) proceeded to pronounce that it has the power to cut in face of a court ruling.
Minister Nandlall called that situation “a complete and utter confusion” since the Parliament is saying one thing, while the court, which is the guardian of the constitution, is saying another.
“That is the conundrum that we find ourselves in…the situation will be compounded further if the Chief Justice is to rule finally on this matter…this will be in collision with the pronouncements made by the Speaker…can the executive take the position that it is not going to be bound by the court?” he questioned.
Bhai why yuh insisting
