Saying that the “ministerial plenary” currently performing the functions of Cabinet is not provided for in the constitution, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday called it illegal.
“They have a ministerial plenary to bypass the Chief Justice’s ruling, which is illegal,” Jagdeo told reporters at a press conference.
Minister of State Joseph Harmon announced last Friday that since acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire upheld the legality of the December 21st no-confidence vote against the government, Cabinet has not met but instead a “ministerial plenary” has been performing its functions.
“They both can’t have the same powers… Clearly they have to know this can’t be so,” Jagdeo said, before adding that as an attorney Harmon ought to know this. He stated that no part of the constitution states that the Cabinet can be replaced by a “ministerial plenary.”
“This ministerial plenary is unconstitutional and illegal,” Jagdeo said, before warning public servants to seek legal advice to safeguard themselves before recognising and acting upon decisions emanating by this grouping.
The court has ruled that with the passage of the motion, the Cabinet, including the president, should have immediately resigned in keeping with the provisions of Article 106(6).
During a press conference held at the Ministry of the Presidency last Friday, Harmon disclosed that the plenary, which includes “all of the ministers,” is usually convened once per month, as opposed to Cabinet sessions, which were held every week.
“They are an extended Cabinet with all the ministers included,” Harmon clarified. Questioned repeatedly as to which law empowers a plenary to exercise the powers of Cabinet, Harmon maintained that the grouping drew its legitimacy from the powers of the president.
“All ministers are appointed by the president to execute some of the duties which are his… they are basically assistants of the president. Therefore, ministers sitting in a meeting with the president have the full authority of the government…Whatever action is taken, is taken under the mandate given by the president, whose mandate lies in the Constitution and his election,” he emphasised.
The minister explained that in the case of contracts awarded, Cabinet and now the “plenary” is “noting” them. “So, there is no question of a no-objection where those are concerned; it’s just a noting and that has always been the position with respect to that,” he clarified.
