SUBJECT to a ruling by Chief Justice (s) Roxane George in the Demerara High Court on Tuesday that the appointment of Sarah Brown and Vikash Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries is illegal, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall SC has filed appeal against him.
In the matter, Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones filed a Fixed Date Request challenging the legality of appointing Sarah Brown and Vikash Ramkissoon, Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, respectively, as members of the National . Assembly.
Jones argues that Brown and Ramkissoon cannot be appointed as non-elected Members of Parliament (MPs), since they were named on the People / Civic Progressive Party (PPP / C) Candidate List for March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Following the PPP / C gaining a majority of 32 seats in the National Assembly, based on the number of votes cast in their favor, Brown and Ramkissoon were not removed from the list of candidates to become Assembly members National.
They were appointed Members of the Twelfth Parliament of Guyana on September 15, 2020 by virtue of Article 186 of the Constitution, which provides that Parliamentary Secretaries may be appointed from persons who are elected members of the National Assembly, or eligible to be elected. as such members.
Jones, through his attorney-in-law Roysdale Forde, SC, relied heavily on the decision in Desmond Morian v Attorney General et anor, where Nandlall had successfully argued that the then Minister was within the Ministry Social Protection, Keith Scott, and Minister for Citizenship Winston Felix were illegal members of the National Assembly.
The Attorney General, in his written submissions to the court, argued that, on the basis of the language used by the framers of Article 186 (1) and 186 (3) of the Constitution, it is bellucid that Parliamentary Secretaries may come from may be elected; that is, taken from the list of candidates put forward by a political party for elections, as well as individuals eligible for such election.
Further, it had submitted that there is no logical judgment that dealt with the merits of the Morian case, and because only a procedural point was argued before the Court of Appeal in that matter, the High Court is allowed to disagree with the decision in Morian. , and was not bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal.
FUND
The Chief Justice rejected this argument, based on the Doctrine of precedent which makes lower courts bound to those courts higher in the hierarchy, even when they do not agree with the courts higher. “It is not for this court to decide that, because the Court of Appeal did not give reasons for upholding Chief Justice Chang’s decision in Morian, or the merits of the case were not disputed in the Court of Appeal, this court can therefore hold that the decision is so wrong, and refuses to follow it. The lack of reasons would be similar to giving reasons that are not accepted as correct, ”said Chief Justice George. Attorney-in-law Manoj Narayan, who is representing the National Assembly Spokesperson in the matter, and the Attorney General also argued that the decision in Morian was irrelevant to this issue, as it deals with appointment Ministers and not Parliamentary Secretaries, two significantly unique positions. However, the Chief Justice rejected this argument, saying it was well deserved.
In addressing the issue of whether they have been elected by being on the list of candidates, Brown and Ramkissoon can, in effect, hold positions as persons eligible for election, that is , as non-elected members by being Parliamentary The Secretaries, the Chief Justice disagreed.
“This is to say that the third can [Brown] and fourthly [Ramkissoon] the respondents are members of the National Assembly, even though they are not drawn members, I think not, ”the Chief Justice maintained in her ruling.
MEMBERSHIP RESPONSIBLE
She stated that, in her view, the issue in the matter is not about holding seats in the National Assembly, but rather surrounds strict membership of the National Assembly, which is dealt with by the Morian case, and it is also factually similar to the case. at hand.
As Chief Justice George was at pains to explain, a member of the National Assembly who cannot vote by that very fact is an unelected member, and can only hold a seat or be a member by virtue of his appointment as a ministerial member technocrat, or as parliamentary secretary, while an elected member becomes a member by being removed from the list of candidates.
In the circumstances, he ruled that, given that Brown and Ramkissoon were not removed from the list of candidates, they cannot become members of the National Assembly, except by appointment as unelected Ministers, or Parliamentary Secretaries, and elected. and non-elected members at the same time.
“The end result is that the facts of this case, as in Morian, the third and fourth respondents are now elected and non-elected members of the National Assembly, and this cannot be. Therefore, I concluded that the third and fourth respondents are not legitimate members of the National Assembly; it would follow that their appointments were unlawful, ”he continued.
The Attorney General and the Minister for Legal Affairs have since filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal against the decision, on the grounds that the Chief Justice has misinterpreted and misinterpreted the law, seeking the judgment to be entered aside, its inverse and / or variable.