The Guyana Court of Appeal has affirmed the ruling of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC nullifying the appointments of Vikash Ramkissoon and Sarah Browne as Parliamentary Secretaries.
A main contention of the Appellants, had been that Chief Justice George fell into error, when she relied on the case of Desmond Morian v. Attorney General forming precedent by which she was bound.
Dismissing the appeal, the appellate court found that Browne and Ramkissoon were not lawful members of the National Assembly since their names were on their party’s list, but were not among the 33 names extracted to take up seats in the National Assembly.
As a result, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory who read the Court’s ruling, stated that the Appellants could not qualify as being non-voting members of the National Assembly; as Parliamentary Secretaries.
Regarding the issue of whether the ruling in Desmond Morian constituted binding precedent on which the Chief Justice relied, the Court of Appeal stated clearly that it did, and that it was also bound by its own decision in that Morian case.
It was a preliminary issue which confronted the appellate court, and called into question whether or not it could stand by its previous ruling affirming that decision, which could have had implications for Browne’s and Ramkissoon’s matter.
Former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang in the Morian case, had ruled that persons who were on the list of candidates but not extracted, are considered to be elected Members of the National Assembly.
In her April 20, 2021 judgment Chief Justice George found that in accordance with the Morian case, the appointments of Ramkissoon and Browne and their membership of the National Assembly were unlawful and she ordered the Speaker to prevent them from sitting in or participating in the business of the House.
Justice George had noted in her ruling that while Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC had previously supported the Morian case when he was in Opposition, he abandoned the principles when applied to Ramkissoon and Browne.
It has always been the contention of Christopher Jones MP—who filed the action challenging the appointments—that the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of Morian had not only been in relation to the issue of jurisdiction, but on all other issues presented in that case.
The appellate court reaffirmed this yesterday in its ruling.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes on behalf of Nandlall who represented Ramkissoon and Browne had argued that the Morian case was not precedent for the issue to be decided regarding his clients.
His argument was that the Morian case, when it engaged the attention of the Court of Appeal, was dealt with only to the extent of the issue of jurisdiction and not on the substantive merits of whether persons on the list of candidates are elected members of the Assembly.
Against this background, he contended that when Chief Justice George found that she was bound by the case and nullified the appointments, her reliance thereon as a precedent was misplaced.
For his part, however, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde for Jones, argued that the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of Morian had not only been in relation to the issue of jurisdiction, but on all other issues presented in that case.
He held the view that for this reason, Justice George would have been rightly bound by the decision therein.
Mendes’ point of departure from that view, however, is that in the absence of the appellate court having specifically heard arguments on the other issues—particularly the substantive one—regarding the construction of the Constitution and persons on the list of candidates being elected members of the Assembly, that issue could not be regarded as having been finally settled and binding.
Justice Gregory noted from the ruling, however, that the appellate court had not only decided the Morian case to the extent of jurisdiction only, but on all the substantive points raised.
After the judgment was rendered, and the Court invited the parties to discuss costs.
Forde proposed $2m dollars against each Appellant.
With no final sum being agreed to by the two sides, however, the Court noted that the costs will be assessed and taxed as being fit for one senior and one junior counsel, according to the general practice of the courts.
Apart from Justice Gregory; the appeal was presided over by Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Chancellor (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards.
Background
In September of 2021, Browne and Ramkissoon were appointed under Article 186 of the Constitution, which provides that Parliamentary Secretaries may be appointed from among persons who are qualified to be elected as members of the National Assembly.
Such Secretaries are appointed by the President to assist specific subject ministers and may respond to questions and debate matters in the Assembly; but they do not have voting rights.
Browne was appointed to Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai, while Ramkissoon was appointed to Minister of Agriculture, Zulfikar Mustapha.
Through his attorney, Jones had argued that the appointments were unlawful.
He contended that the fundamental issue was not whether Browne and Ramkissoon were entitled and eligible to be appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, but whether they are entitled to be Members of the National Assembly by virtue of their appointment to the office of Parliamentary Secretary, at the time when they were elected Members of the House.
Referencing Morian, Jones had submitted that an Elected Member of the National Assembly not extracted from the List of Candidates, “cannot become a non-elected Member of the National Assembly by virtue of their appointment as Parliamentary Secretary.”
Jones had advanced that much turned on the fact that Browne and Ramkissoon were not extracted from the List of candidates of the PPP/C to be the holders of any of the 33 seats that those Candidates have in the National Assembly.
