With the Full Court not currently satisfied of its jurisdiction to grant interim reliefs which High Court Judge Damone Younge has also refused as she too determines her jurisdiction, the eight suspended Opposition MPs will have a longer wait to find out whether they get to attend parliamentary sittings; but the Court did order that their matter be swiftly heard given its public importance.
With the National Assembly officially out of recess from Monday and sittings imminent, the suspended octet was hoping that a Court would grant them interim orders—among them—to attend Parliament, pending the outcome of a challenge to their suspension.
When their appeal to Justice Younge’s refusal came up in the Full Court yesterday afternoon before Justices Jo-Ann Barlow and Sandil Kissoon, the Court underlined its disquiet with the application before it to grant the interim reliefs.
The specific issue which troubled the appellate tribunal, was that the very issues before it, are also before Justice Younge, who is yet to satisfy herself that she in the first place has jurisdiction to hear the case.
After standing the matter down for some time to consult with each other, the Full Court Judges in the unanimous decision, made it clear that they did not assume jurisdiction to hear the matter before them.
In the ruling read by Justice Barlow, the appeal was described as a “premature” one given the peculiar circumstance of the case as she stressed that the issues before both courts were identical and yet to be determined.
Against this background the Judge said that there was in fact no appeal properly laid before the Full Court as there was no final decision from the Court below, to have formed the basis of an appeal, but rather an interim refusal as the Court wanted to first satisfy itself on the issue of its jurisdiction.
In the circumstances, the Full Court refused the grant of any interim relief, but in underscoring the matter’s public interest, ordered that it be dispensed with “with the alacrity it deserves.”
Endorsing the Court’s observations, Solicitor General Nigel Hawke had argued on behalf of the Attorney General (SG) who is listed as a Respondent, that while Justice Younge considers her jurisdiction, the Appellants could not then approach the Full Court for the very reliefs which formed the basis of jurisdictional consideration before Justice Younge.
Hawke sought to emphasize the point that “the Full Court should not assume jurisdiction” in those circumstances.
He said that for the Full Court to look at the very issues as the Court below, and at the same time, amounts to an abuse of the process of the court; while arguing that the first duty of the Court is to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction.
He said, too, that the Appellants have advanced nothing to suggest that there was anything “palpably wrong” with the manner in which Justice Younge exercised her jurisdiction to refuse the interim reliefs, noting that she was rightly entitled to do as she did.
While the SG agreed with Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde for the Appellants, that a superior Court can grant interim reliefs, he said that it could not, given the particular circumstances of the case by which it was confronted.
Forde argued on the contrary, however, that Justice Younge fell into error in deciding that she could not grant the interim reliefs while she determined her jurisdiction to hear his clients’ substantive application.
He said that that was the reason they approached the Full Court seeking its intervention for the reliefs.
Asked why the Court should exercise its discretion given the particular circumstances of the case, Forde said that the public’s interest warranted the grant of the reliefs sought.
On this point he said that the electorate which voted for those now suspended, will be severely prejudiced as their interest would not be fully represented in the National Assembly.
The application of the MPs before the Full Court was for a number of conservatory orders and injunctions for them to be able to attend parliamentary sittings pending the outcome of their appeal and for their suspension be stayed as well as the Order by which they were suspended.
Pending the determination of their appeal, they said they wanted to be allowed to perform their duties as Members of the National Assembly until they have “been afforded the right to be heard before the Parliamen-tary Sessional Select Committee of Privileges.”
They are also asking for costs and any further order the Court deems just to grant.
They argued that their absence from the National Assembly negatively affects the interest of the persons who elected them, and the strength of the Parliamentary Opposition and the general public interest.
They contend further, that the suspension will deny them their right, as Members of Parliament to scrutinize and approve government’s proposed budgetary expenditure and withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund.
Noting Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo’s previous announcement of government’s intention to table amendments to electoral legislation at the end of the current parliamentary recess, the MPs say that their presence in the National Assembly is vital.
With Parliament’s recess having ended on Monday and the substantive challenge set for hearing before Justice Younge on November 1st, the Appellants had said they feared that the proposed legislation along with others will be tabled.
Background
On July 28th, the suspended Parliamentarians Christopher Jones, Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Maureen Philadelphia received their letters of suspension from the National Assembly informing them that they would not be receiving their salaries and other benefits during that period.
A week prior, the House voted to suspend Jones, Mahipaul, Duncan and Singh-Lewis for four consecutive sittings while Ferguson, Jordan, Sarabo-Halley and Philadelphia were suspended for six consecutive sittings. Their suspension came as a result of the failed bid on December 29th, 2021, to obstruct the passage of the Natural Resource Fund bill.
On that chaotic night, 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.
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira later moved a motion to refer the eight MPs to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee’s report, which recommended the suspension, was tabled in Parliament on July 21st and adopted around 1:30 am on July 22nd after the APNU+AFC MPs left the chambers.
The withholding of salaries from the suspended MPs can last months since the National Assembly meets quite infrequently.
The suspended 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.
