Court dismisses M&CC’s challenge to legality of Local Government Commission

Demerara High Court Judge Navindra Singh last Friday dismissed a challenge filed by the Mayor and Councillors of the City (M&CC) of Georgetown to the legality of the Local Government Commission (LGC), the Attorney General’s Chambers reported on Monday.
The AG Chambers said that on March 3, M&CC filed a Fixed Date Application (FDA) seeking several declarations and orders against Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, and the LGC.

Among the reliefs sought were a declaration that Articles 75 and 78A of the Constitution of Guyana are irreconcilably inconsistent with each other, a declaration that Article 75 is the leading provision and should prevail over Article 78A, a declaration that Article 78A is inconsistent with Article 12 of the Constitution and a declaration that Article 78A is inconsistent with Articles 71 and 74 contained in Chapter VII of the Constitution.
The Georgetown M&CC had also asked the High Court to declare that the establishment of the LGC by Parliament by the Local Government Commission Act #18 of 2013 is contrary to Article 75 and is therefore void to the extent of its inconsistency; alternatively, that Section 13(1) & (2) of the Local Government Commission Act are contrary to Article 75 and are thus void to the extent of its inconsistency and a declaration that Section 118 & 119 of the Municipal and District Councils Act as amended by the Municipal and District Councils Act #15 of 2013 is contrary to Article 75 and are therefore void to the extent of their inconsistency.
According to a statement from the AG’s Chambers, the fundamental issue raised by the M&CC is that the establishment of a Local Government Commission by Article 78A, and the vesting of it with the power to regulate and staff Local Government Organs, and a power to resolve disputes within and between Local Democratic Organs collide with and is inconsistent with Article 75 which provides that Local Democratic Organs shall be autonomous.
The missive explained: “The Attorney General, in his submissions, contended that it was always the intent of Parliament to repose authority in a Local Government Commission to deal with all matters relating to the regulation and staffing of local government organs and the power to exercise disciplinary control over local government officers as evidenced in Sections 13 and 120 of the Local Government Commission Act 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Sections 97, 114 (now repealed) and 118 of the Municipal and District Councils Act.”
It stated that the Attorney General also submitted that the legislature in their wisdom to alleviate any ambiguity as to their intendment of the role and functions of the Local Government Commission, went a step further and enacted the Local Government Commission after the Municipal and District Councils Act, Cap 28:01, was updated in 2012.
“The Constitution itself is replete with examples of one organ that is ostensibly autonomous and independent being staffed by another organ, as well as its functions being in some way regulated by another agency. This holds true for many statutory agencies as well.”
In dismissing the FDA, Justice Singh awarded cost in the cum of $200,000 to the Attorney General and the LGC. The Attorney General represented himself, along with Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, and State Counsel Saabira Ali Hydaralie. Attorney-at-Law Brendan Glassford represented the M&CC while the LGC was unrepresented by counsel. (G1)