Attorney General appeals Chief Justice’s ruling - claims CJ erred in law

Attorney General Anil Nandlall

Attorney General Anil Nandlall has filed an appeal against Chief Justice Ian Chang’s ruling in relation to the composition of the Parliamentary Committees, which had seen the AG move to the court, insisting that the composition of the committee should remain the same as it was prior to the November 28 polls.

Chief Justice Ian Chang

When the ruling PPP held control of the Parliament, it had five seats on the committee. However, following the November 28 polls, which gave the opposition a majority in the National Assembly, the PPP’s seats were reduced to four by an opposition vote. As a result, an equal four seats each were voted for the governing PPP and the major opposition APNU. The AFC, the other opposition party, has one seat.

The AG in his appeal said that he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Justice. Justice Chang dismissed the government’s case, saying that the AG made his complaint to the wrong forum and that the court cannot inquire or interfere in the proceedings of the National Assembly.

“The forum for a complaint of this nature is the National Assembly,” Chief Justice Chang said in a 30-page decision.

Nandlall asserted that the CJ erred in law when he treated the proportional representation in the National Assembly (or 10th Parliament) as a domestic or internal matter from which it could depart in its establishment of Committees of the said Assembly. The AG said that the CJ also erred in law when he did not consider the principle of proportionality prescribed for the country’s national elections and embodied in Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution, and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000 was not applicable to its pivotal Committee -the Committee of Selection – and other such relevant Committees.

Nandlall also contends that the Chief Justice dealt with the power of the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure, he failed to give due weight and effect to the subjection of this power to the provisions of the Constitution which included the basis of representation therein.

Further, Nandlall stated that the CJ erred in law in so far as he considered that the Standing Orders of the National Assembly were not subject to the Constitution and he (Justice Chang) totally overlooked and did not deal with the submissions made to him that the Standing Orders were recognized by Guyana’s law and had to be construed with modifications and qualifications to bring them in conformity with the Constitution touching inter alia proportionality.

The Attorney General contends that the decision of the Chief Justice was erroneous in point of law. Nandlall asked that the decision of the court be set aside and reversed and judgment entered for the Appellant.

The government is annoyed that the opposition, which has controlling power in the National Assembly, moved to give it one seat less on the committee of selection. This committee is responsible for nominating all other committees of the Parliament.