Government had expected that outgoing Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang would rule that ministers Keith Scott and Winston Felix could not sit as non-elected members in the National Assembly and had already started preparations to deal with the judgement.
This is according to Scott, who told Stabroek News last evening, in an invited comment, that he and by extension the government feels that the ruling was a “mistake.”
Scott, who is the Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection with responsibility for labour issues, said that the matter is a legal one, which is “already” being addressed by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams.
“We expected this and we were already prepared so there is nothing to worry about,” he said.
Hours after the ruling, Williams told the Government Information Agency (GINA) that filing an appeal is one of the options being considered.
“The ruling in this matter signifies a dot on the administration of justice in this country… we are going to take whatever recourse we consider necessary in this matter,” he was quoted as saying.
Felix, who was in Lethem in Region Nine as part of a government ‘Meet the Public’ outreach, said in an invited comment that while the coalition will obey the ruling of the court, his view is that the AG must be allowed to have a say.
“I am not even sure that the Honourable Attorney General has had an opportunity to respond in this matter and in that regard I think that the process by which the decision was made—while I don’t want to call the conduct of the judge into question—I am not too sure right now [about] the process by which that decision was made,” he said, while stressing that it was his personal position.
Chang’s contention is that the two ministers, by virtue of being elected as part of the coalition’s list of national candidates, could not hold seats in the National Assembly as non-elected members.
“The court can find no legal or constitutional basis on which they can claim that right to sit in the Assembly, whether as voting or non-voting members thereof – despite their appointed status as executive Ministers of Government,” Justice Chang said in his ruling, which was delivered at the High Court, in Georgetown on Friday.
On June 10, the first day of the sitting of the 11th Parliament, the opposition PPP/C had called on Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs to not have the oath administered to Felix and Scott as it argued that their presence as technocrats violated several principles of the constitution.
PPP member Desmond Morian had initiated the legal challenge to Felix and Scott sitting in the National Assembly as non-elected members and sought a declaration that they are not lawful members of the National Assembly and an order that they be prevented from sitting in the Assembly unless their names are extracted from the coalition’s list.
Morian had also asked the court to direct the Speaker of the National Assembly, who was named a respondent in the matter, to prevent the two ministers from sitting in the Assembly, unless and until their names were extracted from the APNU+AFC national top-up list of candidates for the May 11, 2015 general elections.
Meanwhile, Williams, according to a GINA report, declared that he was disturbed by the judgment and the manner in which it was made.
The AG noted that the judge had come out of retirement leave to make a decision. As a result, Williams said a ruling of such a nature is bound to be controversial.
“What would impel him to do that? I find it unusual and it’s something we will address further,” Williams said.
Among the options that can be pursued are to appeal the decision and file a stay of execution, he said, while adding that whilst an order directing the Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Barton Scotland has not been made, the Chief Justice expects the Speaker to follow his ruling.
It was noted that during the trial the attorney for Morian, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, was given an opportunity to make substantive arguments in the matter despite objections by the Attorney General.
“I had appealed to the Chief Justice to just limit ourselves as he had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear the matter because it was not by way of an election petition,” Williams was quoted as saying.
The Chief Justice would have committed to hearing the entire matter before making his ruling and he undertook to communicate by way of notice when the Attorney General would present his substantive arguments on the case, the report said.
However, it added that the Chief Justice failed to communicate, thereby denying the Attorney General the opportunity to present his substantive arguments.
At the time when the Chief Justice proceeded on pre-retirement leave, the parties had the understanding that the matter would have been re-tried before another judge.
“I was informed today (Friday) that the matter was for decision at 1pm. I’m very surprised that the learned Chief Justice would purport to proceed to give a decision without hearing from me,” he contended.
Justice Chang, however, stated in his ruling that it was obvious the issues which have been considered and determined by the court do not relate to any challenge to the legal validity or the conduct of the election or with the allocation of seats to the successful lists of candidates of the respective political parties.
Rather, he said it was on the a priori assumption that the election had been validly conducted and the allocation of seats validly made, the issues relate to matters ex post facto the completion of the election processes.
According to Justice Chang, the determination of such issues could not therefore be matters which attract a challenge by way of an election petition. “The submission of counsel for the respondents that the applicants ought to have approached the court by way of an election petition is therefore misconceived and accordingly overruled,” he asserted.
