Thursday’s sitting of Parliament will see Prime Minister Sam Hinds moving a motion to have the composition of the all-important Committee of Selection declared inconsistent with Standing Order No. 94(1) and for the committee to be prevented from carrying out its duties.
Not having control of the assembly, the government is resigned to the fact that this motion will likely be defeated when a vote is called for and is therefore pursuing the same course of action via Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s constitutional motion in the High Court.
The motion in Hinds’ name seeks to have the House resolve to take immediate steps to ensure that the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection is brought into conformity with Standing Order No. 94(1), and that the currently constituted Committee of Selection be prevented from discharging its functions under Standing Order No. 81.
Before the High Court, the AG is additionally asking the court for orders setting aside, revoking, cancelling or annulling the composition of the committee on the grounds that it was in breach of the Constitution and a breach of the provisions of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act and further directing the respondents and their servants/agents to constitute all Standing Committees and Sectoral Committees and every other Committee of the 10th Parliament, whose composition are not expressly set out in the Constitution, with due regard to and in compliance with the principle of proportionality.
Hinds in the recital to the motion noted that the House selected nine members to the Parliamentary Committee of Selection of the 10th Parliament on February 10, 2012. The constitution of that committee was concretised in a vote of the House and was settled upon as four members for the governing PPP/C, four members for the opposition APNU and one member for the opposition AFC.
The PM noted too that the allocation of a nine member Committee of Selection was by way of an amendment by the combined APNU/AFC opposition to the Motion tabled by the Leader of the House for a ten-member Committee with five for PPP/C, four APNU and one AFC.
He said in the recital clauses that Standing Order No. 94(1) provides for “each Select Committee being so constituted to ensure that, as far as possible, the balance of parties in the National Assembly be reflected in the Committee.”
Hinds pointed out that the existing balance of the parties in the 10th Parliament is as follows:
PPP/C: 32 seats
APNU: 26 seats
AFC: 7 seats
He pointed out also that the balance of the parties in the existing Committee of Selection does not conform to Standing Order No. 94(1)
The Motion called for a resolution to have the decision of the House on the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection declared inconsistent with Standing Order 94(1).
“Be it further resolved that the House takes immediate steps to ensure that the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection is brought into conformity with Standing Order No. 94(1); and…that the currently constituted Committee of Selection be prevented from discharging its functions under Standing Order No. 81,” Hinds said in the Motion.
Attorney General Nandlall maintained that the make-up of several key committees must be based on the proportionality of seats that parties won at last November’s election.
The filing of the Motion came just before the Committee of Selection held a meeting on Wednesday at the Public Buildings to settle on the names for the parliamentary committees that come under its jurisdiction.
Nandlall’s motion raises concerns about constitutional principles and the vital doctrine of the separation of powers. In effect, the AG would be seeking to have the judiciary overturn proceedings internal to the legislative branch.
The Committee of Selection decides on the composition of most committees of the National Assembly.
