Leader of the Alliance For Change and member of the APNU+AFC parliamentary opposition, Khemraj Ramjattan, is adamant that he was denied an opportunity to speak on what has become the controversial passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill last December.
He said that notwithstanding his name, along with those of a number of his opposition colleagues being submitted to speak, House Speaker Manzoor Nadir, denied them from speaking on the Bill before it was declared passed.
Ramjattan was at the time testifying before High Court Judge Navindra Singh, who is hearing the case brought by APNU+AFC Chief Whip Christopher Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter, whose main contention is that because of the absence of the authentic mace from the parliamentary chamber and members not being seated during the voting process, the Bill could not be regarded as having been lawfully passed.
At the trial which commenced yesterday morning, Ramjattan said that a speaking list had been submitted to Nadir and that his name was thereon, because he specifically wanted to add his contribution to the Bill.
He said that after being denied an opportunity to speak, several of his colleagues, “in protest and in defiance” to the Bill being passed for lack of “adequate consultation,” left their seats and disrupted the proceedings, before leaving the Chambers after the Bill had been declared passed.
Responding under cross-examination to a series of questions from attorney Kamal Ramkarran who represented the House Speaker, Ramjattan agreed that the opposition “walked out” of the Parliamen-tary Chamber.
He swiftly added that this was done as a show of defiance, which is an acceptable parliamentary practice, adding that protesting in the Assembly was also covered in the range of measures an aggrieved side of the House may take.
Noting the placards and whistles with which the opposition MPs were armed in their bid to prevent the passage of the Bill, Ramkarran suggested that they had in fact gone there with a well-orchestrated plan not to speak, but rather to disrupt the proceedings
Ramjattan said that while he could not say with certainty that that was a preconceived plan of his colleagues, deducing after the fact, it did appear that way, he remained resolute that he had gone there with the intention only to speak on the Bill.
The witness agreed with counsel that walking out of the National Assembly and then seeking to file an action to complain about not being allowed to speak would be unfair. Ramjattan was quick to point out, however, that it is what happened before the walk-out that must be assessed.
On this point he argued that if names had been submitted on a list to speak, and this was denied, then a walk-out after is justified; even as he again advanced that he had gone there only to speak and was never allowed.
During yesterday’s hearing which spanned the greater part of the work day, Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall SC in his cross-examination of Ramjattan, grilled him extensively on the passage of the previous NRF Bill passed when the APNU+AFC was in government.
Nandlall submitted that the Bill had to be repealed principally because the then-government was unlawfully in power owing to the successful passage of a No-confidence Motion by which it was ousted by the PPP/C who was in opposition at the time.
The AG then sought to enquire from Ramjattan whether the coalition government at the time had consulted the PPP/C before passing its NRF Bill.
Ramjattan in response said that the then-opposition had “stayed away” from the Assembly when the Bill was passed. Further pressed on the issue of consultation, Ramjattan said that the government at the time had sent the Bill to the PPP as parliamentary opposition, and that that was the extent of the consultation required.
Nandlall contended that in the same way, having been given notice of the Bill in the official gazette, the coalition opposition would also have been consulted regarding the passage of PPP’s NRF Bill.
Ramjattan, however, rejected this position, stating that there needed to be wider consultation with other stakeholders which is required by the Constitution. He said that while publications in the gazette give public notice, that may be sufficient for MPs, but not wider stakeholders who, while they ought to, do not necessarily check the gazette.
When asked, he told Nandlall that with the passage of the first NRF Bill, the coalition had discharged its mandate of ensuring the involvement of stakeholders such as the Bar Association and Trade Unions among others.
Nandlall underscored that after the APNU+AFC government had “by itself debated and passed the [previous] NRF Bill,” he found it strange that Ramjattan was “now coming to complain that you [Ramjattan] didn’t get to talk.”
Ramjattan confirmed for the AG that that was precisely the essence of his complaint.
Referencing the speaking list, Nandlall next took issue with the coalition opposition members who he said disrupted the proceedings, noting that they were in the rotunda and not in their seats as is required before a member can deliver an address.
Ramjattan agreed with Nandlall that apart from speaking from one’s seat, permission has to be given by the speaker for an MP to speak from a place otherwise, such as a podium. He also agreed that at the time the proceedings were disrupted, the opposition members were in the rotunda which is a “sacred” space, not allowed for speaking from, unless permission is specifically granted by the Speaker.
When asked, Ramjattan told Nandlall that he was in his seat “almost all of the time,” and that he did indicate to the Speaker that he wanted to speak on the Bill. “I rose twice to so request and also utilized the buzzer to so indicate, but it was not working,” he said.
When asked by Nandlall, Ramjattan could not point out from his witness statement where he indicated to the Speaker, his desire to speak.
Noting that one of the principal challenges of the action is that he was denied an opportunity to speak, Nandlall enquired from Ramjattan, and he agreed, that that detail should have been in his witness statement.
He, however, contended that even though he read over his statement and noted the omission, it was not that vital to add as he was relying on the list presented to the Speaker of his desire to speak.
The trial will continue on November 8th and 9th when Witter and Jones will testify respectively. Thereafter, Justice Singh is likely going to set a date for ruling.
On December 29th, members of the main opposition 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 representing Jones and Witter, had signaled the opposition’s intention of mounting a legal challenge to what it described as the “purported” passage of the bill.
At a press conference on the day following the ruckus in the National Assembly, Nadir remained adamant that the Bill had been legally passed.
Via what was then their FDA, Jones and Witter sought 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 contended, 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.
They 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.
Nandlall had asked the court to strike out the action, arguing, among other things, that it is an abuse of process and baseless.
