The opposition APNU+AFC has moved to the court to challenge the decision of the National Assembly’s Committee of Privileges to recommend the suspension of eight of its MPs over a tumultuous bid on December 29 last year to stop the passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) bill which saw the forcible removal of the parliamentary mace.
The fixed date application with urgent notice was filed in the High Court on Wednesday afternoon by shadow Attorney General Roysdale Forde SC. The MPs were formally suspended by Parliament yesterday morning after the report by the Committee of Privileges was approved. Government MPs rejected the argument by the opposition that the matter was now before the court and therefore sub judice. The government side noted that the matter was not yet before a judge.
According to the report, which was laid in the National Assembly on Thursday, the Committee’s findings were based on video recordings, statements by staff of the Parliament Office and the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, eyewitness accounts by other Members of the House, media reports and the public, both locally and internationally. The report was officially adopted at about 1:30 am yesterday during the 48th sitting of the National Assembly.
The Privileges Committee report recommended that Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan and Natasha Singh-Lewis be suspended for four consecutive sittings and Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Maureen Philadelphia be suspended for six consecutive sittings.
Duncan, back in February, was suspended for four consecutive sittings after he vociferously protested a dildo remark directed at a woman MP by Local Government Minister, Nigel Dharamlall. There is still one sitting remaining before that suspension is over.
The court action, filed by the eight suspended MPs, names the Attorney General, Speaker Manzoor Nadir and Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs as respondents.
The MPs are asking the court to declare that the report of the Committee of Privileges on the Privilege Motion dated January 24, 2022, is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect. They are also asking the court to determine that the report breached the principles of natural justice since they were not guaranteed their rights prescribed under Article 144 (8) of the Constitution.
Article 144 (8) states “Any court or other tribunal prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial: and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other tribunal, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”
The incident occurred just after 7 pm on December 29, 2021, when Senior Minister in the Office of the President with the responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh took to the floor to present the bill for the second reading. Prior to the incident, the main opposition and a range of civil society voices had been calling for the bill, which had sought to repeal the Natural Resources Fund Act of 2019, to be sent to a special select committee for debate and consultations.
The government did not accede to the request and the bill was rushed through the House and later signed into law by President Irfaan Ali.
Scattered
On the chaotic night of December 29, APNU+AFC parliamentarians were scattered throughout the parliamentary chamber chanting “no thieving bill must pass,” while blowing whistles and banging on the tables.
The Speaker tried, unsuccessfully, to restore order to the House.
In the end, MP Ferguson grabbed the ceremonial mace and made a dash for the door but was tackled by the Sergeant-at-Arms and another parliamentary security officer. At this time other Opposition MPs rushed to her aid even as Singh was still on the floor making his presentation.
Later, a video surfaced of APNU+AFC MP Philadelphia hurling slurs at Parliamentary staffer Ean Mc Pherson.
A motion was subsequently moved by Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira to refer the eight MPs to the Committee of Privileges.
The motion argued that Ferguson and Jordan “committed contempt and breaches of privileges by forcefully, unauthorisedly, and in a disorderly fashion, removing the Mace from its rightful position and attempting to remove it from the Chamber, thereby creating grave disorder and chaos which resulted in injuries to a member of staff of the Parliament Office and damage to the Mace.”
It added, “…Sarabo-Halley committed contempt and breaches of privileges by unauthorisedly entering the communication control room of the Arthur Chung Convention Centre and destroyed several pieces of audio-visual equipment, being public property, with the intention to disrupt the sound and internet connection so as to affect the Assembly from conducting its lawful business.”
According to the Privileges Committee report, which was adopted by the Committee on June 9, the MPs were asked to “show cause” as to why actions should not be taken against them. All of the MPs responded in writing requesting the particulars of the charges against them along with the opportunity to appear before the Committee with their duly appointed counsels, however, the Committee never responded to the requests and instead went ahead with its work.
As a consequence, the MPs are asking the court to determine that the report breached the audi alteram partem [listen to the other side] rule as they were not afforded the right to be before the Parliamentary Sessional Select Committee of Privileges on the Privilege Motion. They are also asking that the suspension be declared as “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect, a breach of the principles of natural justice” since they were not granted a right to a hearing.
The Committee was chaired by Speaker Nadir and the other members were Prime Minister Mark Phillips, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, Teixeira, Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport Charles Ramson and Sanjeev Datadin. Khemraj Ramjattan, Roysdale Forde, Geeta Chandan-Edmond and David Patterson represented the Opposition on the Committee.
Additionally, the suspended MPs, are arguing that the Committee exercised a judicial function and that Teixeira’s involvement and participation in the determination of the motion was a conflict of interest and as such, it should be deemed null and void. They also accused the Committee of being biased in its deliberation, ultimately violating their Article 144 (8) rights.
Through their attorneys, the MPs are asking the court to issue an order allowing them to be reinstated in the National Assembly until they have been afforded the right to be heard before the Parliamen-tary Sessional Select Committee of Privileges on the motion; an order quashing the report laid in the House; a conservatory order or injunction suspending the effect, operation and or validity of the report pending the determination of the fixed date application.
Precedent
Prior to the filing of the legal proceedings, Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton said that the MPs were not given a fair hearing and as such the move to suspend them should be deemed as an act of political victimization. He contended that a precedent has been set as to how the Privileges Committee deals with motions and as such it should be adhered to.
Ramjattan, who is a member of the Privileges Committee and also sat on the Committee during the APNU+AFC’s time in government, said that when the current Minister of Public Works, Juan Edghill was summoned before the Committee he was afforded the right to a fair hearing and legal representation of his choice.
Edghill was summoned before the Committee in 2017 while he was an Opposition MP and was represented by attorney at law Bibi Shadick.
“The Privileges Committee set certain precedents at the behest of the [PPP/C] Opposition members therein at that time. Primarily the lawyers Mr Anil Nandlall and Priya Manickchand, they had made it quite clear that Mr Edghill must be given the right to counsel. I was then also a sitting member of the Committee of Privileges [and we] agreed that yes indeed, under the law, the Constitution of Guyana, Bishop Edghill is entitled [to legal representation] in defending himself against the then violations that we had alleged and he got his lawyer
“Additionally, they had asked in relation to the same Bishop Edghill what are the particulars of the charge … and we had to find the particulars to give them and…we literally created precedents for them and that is why we are very, very pained that the fact that when it now had to apply to the eight people who the speaker Mr Manzoor, Nadir has found wanting, in his words, none of these precedents applied,” Ramjattan said.
Meanwhile, Forde who is one of the named attorneys for the suspended MPs said that the court action will put the spotlight on the operations of Parliament and the contradictory stances of Speaker Nadir.
“There has been a consistent pattern by the Speaker and the government members of that Committee to deprive and deny the eight MPs an opportunity to be heard…it is a disappointment that the Attorney General who is a member of that Committee and who would have known better and even after would have been reminded of the arguments and the adoption of those arguments by the Privileges Committee carelessly, and wantonly simply said ‘that was then this is now’ and that is the sort of management we seeing in this country,” Forde said.
