Government yesterday filed a legal challenge to overturn Speaker Raphael Trotman’s decision to limit Home Minister Clement Rohee’s participation in the National Assembly.
The challenge, the latest action brought to the court by Attorney General Anil Nandlall over parliamentary procedures, comes days after President Donald Ramotar declared that the government would take steps to defend the minister in the wake of the ruling.
Trotman’s decision in effect limits the minister’s participation, pending the findings of the Committee of Privileges on the enforceability of a motion in the name of Opposition Leader David Granger seeking to have Rohee gagged in the National Assembly.
In the action, which names both Trotman and Granger as respondents, Nandlall asks for a declaration that the Speaker’s decision is “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, in excess of and without jurisdiction, contrary to the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, capricious, null and void and of no effect.”
In addition, he asks for a declaration that the Privileges Committee has no jurisdiction to deal with or determine any issue remitted to it by virtue of the Trotman’s ruling.
Nandlall also asks for orders setting aside the ruling and any decision and/or ruling of the Privileges Committee arising from it as well as one directing Trotman to permit Rohee to perform his duties in the National Assembly as an elected member and a duly appointed Minister of Government.
According to the Notice of Motion and the Supporting Affidavit, Trotman’s ruling “is pre-emptive,” since it has put into immediate effect the resolution sought by Granger’s motion. They also say that it has also given effect to the no-confidence motion passed against Rohee in July.
“Invariably, the ruling has pre-empted and will prejudice any findings of the Privileges Committee as it has the effect of sanctioning the Minister without due process being accorded to him,” the motion says.
“[The no confidence motion] has been enforced, through the backdoor, even though the Speaker in his ruling on 22nd November conceded that the presentation of the Minister Clement James Rohee MP, on the floor of the National Assembly during the debate leading to that resolution does not amount to an exercise in his right to be heard…,” it adds, saying further that Rohee was at no appoint allowed to address the motion at the last sitting of the National Assembly, when it was deemed admissible and properly tabled.
The motion adds that a member of the National Assembly can only be committed to the Privileges Committee for a violation of privilege—being an offence committed within the precincts of the Parliament. It says Rohee was never told which privilege he violated or what offence he committed. “[The Speaker] has imposed a sanction on [the minister] without affording him any form of due process, natural justice and fairness and accordingly, that decision is unlawful, contrary to natural justice, irrational, null, void and of no effect,” it further argues.
According to the motion, the National Assembly is a creature of the constitution and consequently the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is not applicable in this case. It contends that the joint opposition by virtue of their superior number cannot “override, subvert or abrogate the laws of the land, the Standing Orders, common law principles and the Constitution itself.”
It adds, “No power whatsoever exists under the Standing Orders, the Laws of the land, or the constitution to impose a prohibition on a member of the National Assembly from speaking or performing the functions which devolve upon that member, either as a member or as a minister thereof.”
Meanwhile, the Supporting Affidavit notes that since the passing of the no-confidence motion against Rohee, the leaders of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) have made statements to the effect that the National Assembly will sanction Rohee if he or the government ignores the motion.
He said that during a public meeting on August 24, APNU Deputy Leader and MP Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine said that “upon the resumption of sittings of the National Assembly in October 2012, the Joint Opposition would approach the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly to suspend Minister Rohee for six months if he fails to adhere to the no-confidence motion.”
It also notes that at a press conference on August 7, Granger while addressing the passage of the no-confidence motion, said that “they will remove the Minister of Home Affairs from office.”
Nandlall said that the joint opposition and the Speaker continue to hold “unyieldingly, to the view that their votes by virtue of their combined superior number can override, subvert and abrogate the laws of the land, the Standing Orders, common law principles and the Constitution itself.”
