Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang yesterday heard final arguments in the legal battle to quash Speaker Raphael Trotman’s decision preventing Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee from speaking in the National Assembly.
Justice Chang will give his ruling after a review of the points of law presented.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall filed a motion challenging Trotman’s decision and Justice Chang last month made a preliminary ruling that Rohee as an elected member has a right to speak in the National Assembly but noted that the court could not enforce it.
“…It is the view of this court that Mr Rohee’s right to speak in the National Assem-bly derives from his office as a member of the National Assembly and not from his office as an executive minister. This, his right as an elected member of the National Assembly must be concomitant with his constitutional duty to speak for and to represent his electors in the National Assembly who, in turn, have a concomitant right to be represented,” he said in the ruling.
When the case was heard last Monday, Nandlall reiterated his submissions to have the Speaker’s decision overruled. He was absent during yesterday’s proceedings, when attorneys Roysdale Forde and Basil Williams presented their arguments.
Forde, before presenting various legal arguments, said Article 171 of the Consti-tution, “is really what this case is all about” and also made mention of the fact that the rules of procedure of the National Assembly is provided for in Article 38 of the Standing Orders.
He said that Article 38 states that no member shall speak unless called upon by the Speaker or the Chairper-son. Forde stated that he was making reference to it because the complaint is that the Speaker breached a constitutional right.
“…But what the Speaker did was take a position that he will not recognise Rohee in the National Assembly in relation to speaking in the National Assembly,” the attorney submitted.
“There is not a single legal argument to demonstrate that the Speaker does not have that power,” he said. He then asked the court to review Article 171 and to reassess whether it is a right provided there or whether it is a power invested in a member. He said that while the court is being asked to rule that the Speaker acted unprofessionally, Arti-cle 171 addressed that right.
Meanwhile, Williams also made similar submissions on Article 171.
Senior Counsel Ashton Chase, who appears for the government with Nandlall, subsequently asked for leave to summarise and respond to the points given by the two lawyers. He is expected to lay over his response to the court during the course of this week.
