Opposition Parliamentary Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Witter, have filed an action challenging last December’s passage of the controversial Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill.
Their main contention is that because of the absence of the authentic Mace from the House and members not being seated during the voting process, the Bill could not be regarded as having been lawfully passed.
On December 29th, the main Opposition APNU+AFC coalition in a failed bid to derail the passage of the Bill, attempted to seize the ceremonial Mace—the symbol of authority in the House.
Since then, Shadow Attorney General, Roysdale Forde SC, who is now representing Jones and Witter, had signalled the Opposition’s intention of mounting a legal challenge to what it described as the “purported” passage of the Bill.
Opposition Member of Parliament Annette Ferguson, aided by a number of her APNU colleagues, snatched the Mace from its place on the Clerk’s desk in a bid to disrupt the passage of the Bill.
At a press conference the day following the ruckus in the National Assembly, House Speaker Manzoor Nadir remained adamant that the Bill had been legally passed.
In their Fixed Date Application (FDA), Jones and Witter (the Applicants) are seeking a number of declarations—among them that—the conduct of the business of the House in the absence of the Mace and subsequent passage of the Bill were illegal.
They contend that the procedure went against constitutional values of the Rule of Law, democracy, and inclusive governance and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
They argue, too, that continuing the proceedings for that day beyond the stipulated time and also allowing for use of a replacement Mace without Motions so allowing, was also unlawful; and want the Court to so declare.
Nadir’s contention has always been that a replica Mace was in place at the time the vote was taken.
He had previously told the press that the Mace used at the sitting at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre was an exact replica of the original Mace presented to the National Assembly at the time of independence.
The Speaker added that almost all Parliaments in the Westminster System have two Maces in the event of one not being found or stolen.
Forde has argued, however, that the Mace was not in place at the time the vote was taken and that a replica could not suffice.
A position of the Opposition has also been that the passage of the Bill constituted the rejection of participatory governance.
Essential
Forde had previously told his newspaper that civil society was rejected from having a critical and essential role in the governance of the country, stating that “participatory governance [was] recognized as part of the constitutional system of Guyana.”
In the action, Witter submits that he has a fundamental right to political participation in the conduct of public affairs which is guaranteed by Article 154A of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
Against this background, he is asking the Court to declare that in accordance with Article 154A, government in formulating an NRF policy, was under an obligation to engage in consultation with citizens and stakeholders.
The trade unionist is contending that his rights have been contravened.
Meanwhile, Jones submitted that as a Member of Parliament, he has a right to, and a legitimate expectation that the National Assembly “would function, operate and conduct its affairs in accordance with the Standing Orders” of the House.
The Applicants are further seeking a declaration that “the Executive’s failure to constitute the Human Rights Commission, a Constitutional Commission established under Article 154A” is a contravention of the Constitution; even as they ask that the Commission be established forthwith.
Among the Orders Jones and Witter are seeking, are that all actions taken by anyone, including the Minister of Finance, pursuant to the passage of the Bill, or the constitution of any Board under the NRF, be declared null and void and of no effect.
The Applicants are also asking the Court to grant any Order necessary to ensure that the NRF be replenished to the extent of all sums disbursed from the Fund, inclusive of any Appropriation Act.
The Attorney General, Minister of Finance, Speaker and Clerk of the National Assembly and Parliament Office, have all been listed as Respondents in the action.
The Opposition and a range of civil society voices had been calling for the Bill, which has now repealed the Natural Resource Fund Act of 2019, to be sent to a special select committee for debate and consultations.
Ignoring those mounting calls and even the in-House protest from the Opposition to send the Bill to such a Committee, however, the PPP/C Government blazed ahead with the passage of the controversial legislation.
