After losing court cases: Demand made for payment of $10.9M in court costs from Opposition MPs

…can face jail time, seizure of assets

Several Opposition parliamentarians have racked up a relatively enormous bill for court costs.
And with them failing to pay a combined $10.9M, they are at risk of being held in contempt of court. Moreover, lawyers for the winning parties are in the process of enforcing judgements against them, which could result in the seizure of their assets and/or imprisonment.
On June 19, Justice Navindra Singh had ordered Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Witter to each pay $250,000 in costs to five respondents.

The duo had named the Attorney General, Finance Minister, Clerk of the National Assembly, Speaker of the National Assembly and Parliament Office in their application challenging the validity of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act that was passed on December 29, 2021.
They had contended that due to the absence of the Parliamentary Mace – the most significant symbol in the National Assembly – and because some members of the House had not been seated, the NRF Act cannot be regarded as being lawfully passed.
But in dismissing their case “in its entirety” on June 19, High Court Judge Navindra Singh, among other things, held that the presence, absence, or use of the Mace in the National Assembly is not provided for in the Constitution or Laws of Guyana.
The Judge had also decided that the High Court lacks the authority to interfere in the internal matters of the National Assembly under the Constitution.
“It is clear from the evidence that the Mace is nothing more than a relic intended only to be symbolic existence in the National Assembly. It is illogical to believe that the presence or absence of a length of metal can determine the legitimacy of acts done by persons elected by the citizens of the country pursuant to their elected duties,” Justice Singh had said.
Jones and Witter were each ordered to pay $1,250,000 in costs, totalling $2,500,000 on or before July 19.
With the deadline for payment already gone, Sase Gunraj, the respondents’ lawyer has written to Jones and Witter demanding that they pay the sum within 14 days of his letter dated August 13. Failure to comply will result in proceedings to recover the sum without further notice to them, the lawyer has warned.

Suspension
Similarly, Gunraj has written to eight Opposition parliamentarians, including Jones demanding that they settle the costs awarded after their case to overturn their suspension was dismissed.
The other MPs are: Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, and Maureen Philadelphia.
The MPs’ turbulent attempt on December 2 9, 2021, to block the passage of the NRF Bill—which resulted in the violent removal of the Parliamentary Mace—led to their suspension from the National Assembly.
In throwing out the case, Justice Damone Younge had ruled, inter alia, that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to intervene in the internal matters of the National Assembly.
In those legal proceedings filed against the Attorney General, Clerk of the National Assembly, and Speaker of the National Assembly, the MPs were each ordered to pay costs to the tune of $350,000 to each of the three defendants on or before February 6.

The total costs owing in this case is $8,400,000.
Although the losing parties have appealed both Justice Singh’s and Justice Younge’s ruling, no stay of execution was applied for or granted which effectively means that the respondents’ lawyer can move to have the judgements enforced.

Cost recovery
Recently, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, disclosed that he had written letters of demand to the applicants in both cases, but according to him, they have been ignored.
In light of this, he said the Attorney General’s Chambers is in the process of moving to recover costs awarded in litigation lost by the main parliamentary Opposition
“I have already asked my staff to accumulate the matters and let us begin the enforcement process of getting these monies. When you file these frivolous, vexatious matters and the court expresses its displeasure in order for costs, they must be paid,” he had told reporters in June.
When asked to explain the enforcement process, he said that while there are many ways to enforce a court judgement, his chambers will be exploring three options.
First, Nandlall said the court can seize the personal assets, both movable and immovable, of the losing party. Another option, he said, is that “You can go to imprison them if you establish that they have the means to pay and they are deliberating not paying.”
The Opposition deliberating not paying the costs can be established because its Members of Parliament, who are the applicants/claimants, are salaried employees, he reasoned.
The third option, he disclosed, is going to their employers to garnish wages/salaries due to them monthly, or depending on their pay frequency. Nandlall has assured that these processes will be examined and that he will “move swiftly” to recover the owed monies. (G1)