Eight APNU+AFC Members of Parliament (MPs) were suspended for various periods in the wee hours of Friday morning when a motion recommended by the National Assembly’s Committee of Privileges was adopted in the absence of the main opposition members.
On December 29 last year, chaos erupted in the National Assembly when the eight – Christopher Jones, who is Opposition Chief Whip, Ganesh Mahipaul, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, Sherod Duncan, Vinceroy Jordan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson and Maureen Philadelphia, of APNU+AFC, attempted to stop the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) bill.
MPs Ferguson and Jordan were suspended for six consecutive sittings of the National Assembly, for what Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira described as “serious and egregious violation” in removing the Parliamentary mace from its rightful position and acting in a disorderly manner, damaging the mace and injuring a member of staff of the Parliament Office.
Based on the adopted report, Sarabo-Halley was also suspended for six consecutive sittings of the National Assembly for entering the communications room and destroying Parliamentary property. Philadelphia was also suspended for six consecutive sittings of the National Assembly for verbally assaulting an employee of the Parliament Office.
Jones, Mahipaul, Duncan and Singh-Lewis were suspended for four consecutive sittings.
The members were referred to the Committee of Privileges for what was described as “gross disorderly conduct, contempt, and breaches of privileges”.
According to Teixeira, after five meetings of the committee, three of which were attended by the opposition members, and after reviewing video evidence, eyewitness and media accounts, the Committee recommended the suspension of the eight APNU+AFC MPs for an unprecedented move to derail the parliamentary process when they forcibly removed the ceremonial mace from the Chamber as part of a protest to stop the passage of the NRF bill.
APNU+AFC last week rejected the recommendations of the committee, calling them “unconstitutional, unparliamentary and an act of political discrimination and suppression.” The MPs denied the accusation of gross disorderly conduct, contempt, and breaches of privileges.
APNU+AFC on Wednesday filed a motion in the High Court to prevent the report from the Privileges Committee from being adopted and its members from being suspended.
When the report came to the floor for adoption early yesterday morning, AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan objected, declaring that the matter was sub judice because it was before a court of law. He also objected on the grounds that minutes of the evidence were not attached to the report. Ramjattan reminded Speaker Manzoor Nadir of two previous rulings when he accepted the sub judice argument — in the case of the Henry boys and the flaring of gas offshore.
However, according to Nadir, who cited several parliamentary rulings in Commonwealth countries, the present matter was not before the court, since the National Assembly was provided with only a filing.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, in dismissing Ramjattan’s arguments that the matter was subject to the sub judice rule because it was “active and alive”, argued that the matter was only filed at the Registry on July 20, and had not gone to a judge, and as a result it was not active. He said in the Henry boys’ case, charges were already filed and in the flaring case, the matter was filed months before and was already assigned to judge for hearing, which rendered it sub judice. He said that he fully supported Nadir’s ruling that the matter was not subject to the sub judice argument.
And in response to Ramjattan’s argument that the report could not be adopted because there were no minutes of the evidence attached, Nadir said he saw all the relevant documents attached to the report. Nadir then ruled that the motion to adopt the report for the suspension of the MPs should proceed.
Members of the Opposition then left the Assembly before the report was debated and accepted.
Teixeira in announcing the suspension said that if the members had shown any contrition or remorse and had apologised for their actions, they would not have been suspended.
