Detecting what the Court considers a material disputed fact, Justice Navindra Singh has asked all the parties in the challenge to the passage of the controversial Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill to submit a statement of agreed facts.
Though having previously held a case management conference (CMC) at which September 12 was set for hearing of the Fixed Date Application (FDA), Justice Singh invited the parties back to court on Wednesday to raise what he detected as a possible dispute on a material fact in the case.
The issue, which the Judge wants dealt with before hearing the substantive application, is the allegation in the affidavit of the applicants that the Speaker of the House deprived members of the opposition from participating in the debate on the bill.
The applicants – Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter – and the respondents – the Attorney General, Minister of Finance, Speaker, Clerk of the National Assembly and the Parliament Office – had all previously indicated that there were no disputed facts that needed to be resolved before the case could proceed.
In light of the observation made by the Court, however, Justice Singh has ordered all the parties to file a statement of agreed facts for clarity on what may be disagreed or agreed on.
That statement is to be submitted to the court no later than July 7, following which a hearing on this preliminary issue has been set for July 15.
Meanwhile, the September 12 date for hearing of the substantive FDA remains unchanged.
The applicants’ main contention is that because of the absence of the authentic mace from the National Assembly and members not being seated during the voting process, the Bill could not be regarded as having been lawfully passed.
On December 29, the main opposition coalition APNU+AFC, 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 on the day following the ruckus in the National Assembly, House Speaker Manzoor Nadir remained adamant that the bill had been legally passed.
Via their FDA, Jones and Witter are seeking a number of declarations, including 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, among other things, that the procedure went against constitutional values of the rule of law, democracy, and inclusive governance and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
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.
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.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC has since asked the court to strike out the action, arguing, among other things, that it is an abuse of process and baseless.
The opposition and a range of civil society voices had been calling for the Bill to be sent to a special select committee for debate and consultations.
Ignoring those mounting calls and even the protest from the coalition parliamentarians to send the bill to such a Committee, however, the PPP/C government went ahead with the passage of the controversial legislation.
