Constitution of Parliamentary Committees… PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 17 June 2012 21:41
Attorney General dubs Chief Justice’s findings erroneous
- appeals entire decision of Acting Chief Justice
ATTORNEY-General, Anil Nandlall has appealed the entire decision of Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang, S.C. in relation to, among other things, his findings about the constitution of the Parliamentary Committees, and his alleged errors in law by not considering the principle of proportionality. The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the acting Chief Justice, contained in the proceedings 19/12 - M (Demerara) dated May 2, 2012 and handed down in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3; and will, at the hearing of the Appeal, seek the reliefs set out in Paragraph 4.
AND the appellant further states that the names and addresses, including his own, of the persons directly affected by this appeal are those set out in Paragraph 5.
The whole of the decision of the Learned Chief Justice is appealed.

The grounds of appeal are:

a)    The learned acting Honourable Chief Justice (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Trial Judge) 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.

b)    The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he did not consider the principle of proportionality prescribed for our national elections and embodied in Articles 60 and 160 of our Constitution and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000, (which he said) was not applicable to its pivotal Committee, the Committee of Selection, and other relevant such Committees.

That insofar as the Learned Trial Judge dealt on 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.
The learned trial judge erred in law insofar as he considered that the Standing Orders of the National Assembly were not subject to our Constitution, and he totally overlooked and did not deal with the submissions made to him that the Standing Orders were recognized by our law and had to be construed with modifications and qualifications to bring them in conformity with the Constitution touching inter alia proportionality.

The decision of the Learned Trial Judge was erroneous in point of law.
The relief sought by the appellant is that the decision of the court below be set aside and reversed, and judgment be entered for the appellant in terms of the declarations sought in his Notice of Motion of March 2012, and in terms of the Orders set out therein; and that the costs awarded to the respondents be quashed, but that they do pay the costs of this Appeal and in the High Court.
The names and addresses of the persons directly affected by this Appeal are David Granger, Leader of the List of Candidates of A Partnership for National Unity and Leader of the Opposition; Raphael Trotman, Leader of the List of candidates of the Alliance for Change and Speaker of the National Assembly;
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs.
 
Get Adobe Flash player

More Top Stories