Georgetown: Even the Supreme Parliament of Guyana is not above and beyond the Constitution.
This is according to the Government’s Legal Advisor, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, in defending the move to undertake legal action challenging the actions of the combined opposition parties in Parliament.
Nandlall spoke with this publication during a break from his plenary session as part of the Guyana delegation to the 23rd Intercessional Meeting of CARICOM Heads in Paramaribo Suriname.
The combined Opposition parties, Alliance for Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity are at loggerheads with the ruling Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) over the dispensation of the Committees of Parliament.
The defiant Attorney General in firing back at the critics reminding that the country has a proportional representation system and this has to be respected and adhered to in the makeup of the Parliamentary Committees.
The combined opposition parties had used their advantage to amend the parameters for the amount of persons that could sit in such a committee.
Previously, the PPP/C had five seats, the Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR) four and the AFC one.
That was changed by the combined opposition reducing it to nine, which would give the ruling administration four.
APNU would also have four and the AFC would have the remaining one seat ensuring that the opposition votes on such committees were in the majority as in the case of the 65 Seat National Assembly.
Nandlall yesterday also reminded the Opposition leaders that the seats in Parliament are allocated based on a percent of the votes at the elections that saw the PPP/C having the single largest bloc in the House.
Both the Opposition Leader, David Granger, and Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, are named as respondents in the legal battle about to be waged by the PPP/C.
He argued that it cannot be upheld, that the PPP/C with 49 percent of the votes at election were saddled with only four seats on the committees while APNU which secured for itself 40 percent of the votes are also given four seats.
“Based on that proportionality principle, seats were allocated to respective parties, based on results of last election.”
The PPP/C has 32 seats in the House while APNU holds 26 and AFC seven giving the combined opposition a 33/32 voting advantage in the National Assembly.
“The 32 that the PPP/C has is six more than APNU,” Nandlall sought to remind even as he pointed out that this dispensation translates to roughly 30,000 more people voting for the administration over APNU or another political party.
He stressed that the Committees of Parliament, “undertake a very important part of the works of the National Assembly,” and as such its composition of Parliament must be reflected in those Committees.”
Nandlall argues that the composition being pushed for by the opposition does not accurately translate the makeup of the House saying that “they are trying to equate 49.2 percent with 40 percent.”
“In other words, the 30,000 or more thousand persons who voted for the PPP/C, their views, their franchise, their votes are not expressed in the configuration of a committee gives the PPP/C four seats and APNU four.”
Nandlall called the moves by the opposition a violation of the proportionality principle “that is captured and contemplated and provided for by the Constitution.”
He said that there is nothing unprecedented about the Government’s action adding that, “Parliament remains an organ that is subservient to the Constitution (of Guyana)…Parliament has no authority to act beyond the powers reposed in it by the Constitution.”
The Minister said that if hypothetically, the National Assembly approves and pass as piece of Law which conflicts with the Constitution, “the court has the power to strike it down.”
He drew reference to 1997 when the Parliament had passed a Law relevant to the General Elections of that year.
He was speaking to the amendments to make mandatory the use of an Identification Card when qualifying to vote and the PNC “took that to court and the Judge upheld the PNC’s submission that the requirement of an ID card is unconstitutional and as such the House had acted in contravention to the Supreme Law of the land.”
The nation’s Chief Legal Minister said that “when those who are speaking about the Constitutional propriety of the move of the Government they are speaking off the cuff.”
According to Nandlall, when the detractors would have had some time to sit and really address their minds to the statements they have made they may have a change of heart.
He said that the move is nothing new on the part of the Government and that the Court always has the power to strike down a decision taken in Parliament.
The Minister is confident that there will not be a long lag that is played out in court given that there is the special Constitutional Court and has no backlog of cases.
Nandlall this week moved to the special Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that the composition of the Committee of Selection “is in violation of the principle of proportionality as contemplated by Articles 60 and 160, of the Constitution and the provisions of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act No.15 of 2000 and accordingly, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect.”
Further, the Government wants the court to issue an order setting aside, revoking, cancelling or annulling the composition of the said Committee of Selection on the ground that it is violative of Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution of Guyana and in breach of the provisions of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000.
You must be logged in to post a comment.