Attorney General Anil Nandlall has been given a week to file a written response to arguments against his Constitutional Motion challenging the composition of the National Assembly’s Committee of Selection, after which Chief Justice Ian Chang will hand down his ruling.
When the case continued yesterday, Justice Chang heard arguments from Senior Counsel Rex McKay and attorneys Roysdale Forde and Khemraj Ramjattan, who are representing the respondents.
Nandlall filed a constitutional motion in February seeking to contest the numerical composition of the Committee of Selection and other parliamentary committees.
He has argued that representation in the parliamentary committees must be based on the proportionality determined by seats that parties won at last November’s election.
Opposition leader and leader of APNU’s candidates’ list, David Granger, and Speaker and leader of AFC’s candidates’ list Raphael Trotman are the respondents.
Forde, who is representing Trotman in his capacity as Speaker, said after the hearing that he and his associates presented arguments that demonstrated that the motion filed by the Attorney General was bad in law and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
He said that they were able to clearly show that the constitution does not allow the court to deal with the issue of proportionality or any issue in relation to the composition of the Committee of Selection or the select committees it is responsible for setting up.
He added that it is the National Assembly that decides on the members for any committee and noted that the Standing Orders specifically provide “that it is the members of the Assembly [that] are to constitute themselves and then decide on the composition of each and every select committee.” Forde was confident that the “court will rule in our favour.”
During his presentation, Ramjattan, who is also representing Trotman, pointed to various sections of the constitution which addressed how the business of parliament is to be handled.
“Article 165 is saying that the National Assembly can make rules and the Act is saying that there are Standing Orders that can be adapted, modified and so construed,” he said, adding that all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly must be determined by the majority members present and voted on.
Ramjattan later submitted that the Standing Orders make provision for six to ten members on the committee. Ramjattan pointed out that the Standing Orders are exhibits in the case, stressing that the court ought not to encroach on parliamentary business unless there are constitutional grounds.
“When we did what we did, it was constitutional… you cannot indicate to the court that nine was wrong but if it was ten it is correct,” he said.
Justice Chang interrupted, saying it was “not a question for me” and he said on several occasions that issues being raised by Ramjattan should be addressed by Trotman.
Towards the end of the hearing, Justice Chang noted that it was clear that the lawyers were saying that the membership of the National Assembly must be determined by the National Assembly.
He pointed out that it currently stands at 65 because the National Assembly says so.
He said that his concern is that some of the Standing Orders speak of five members for government and four for the opposition.
Nandlall is seeking a declaration that the composition of the Committee of Selection is a violation of the “principle of proportionality…” and orders cancelling its composition and directing that every other committee of the 10th Parliament, whose composition is not expressly set out in the Constitution, adhere to the principle of proportionality in its make-up.
