AG Nandlall slams Campbell’s NRF Amendment Bill as “sub judice, ill-advised and inconsequential”

…warns Parliament cannot act on amendments while MP pursues same challenge in court

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC, has described the Natural Resource Fund (Amendment) Bill 2025, tabled by Opposition parliamentarian Terrence Campbell, as “sub judice, ill-advised, and inconsequential”, warning that it cannot proceed in the National Assembly while Campbell’s court case challenging the same law is still before the High Court.

Speaking during his weekly programme “Issues in the News”, Nandlall explained that Campbell, a first-time parliamentarian representing the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) in the 13th Parliament, had already filed legal proceedings on February 20, 2024, challenging the constitutionality of the Natural Resources Fund Act (2021). That case, he noted, remains pending before the High Court.
“The National Assembly cannot proceed to deal with a matter if that matter is sub judice, meaning that it is pending in the court system of our country,” Nandlall said, referencing Standing Order 41(2) of Parliament.
The Standing Order in question is Number 41 (2), which states: “Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice, in such a way as might, in the opinion of the Chair, prejudice the interest of parties thereto.”

“Those standing orders provide very clearly that the National Assembly cannot proceed to deal with a matter if that matter is sub judice. That rule is one that is grounded in the separation of power doctrine. The standing orders of Parliament are structured to recognise and respect that doctrine. Once there is a matter that is occupying the court, the Parliament, as a matter of standing orders prohibit the consideration of that matter by the national assembly.”
According to the Attorney General, Campbell’s proposed amendments to Section 16 of the Act effectively seek to achieve the same remedies he is asking the court to grant.
“In short, he is prosecuting his cause simultaneously at two different forums. In two different arms of Government,” Nandlall emphasised.
“The Constitution itself does not contemplate that, does not provide for that, and will not permit that. The court system itself would say that the process would constitute an abuse of process of the court. The same principle applies to the Parliament; you cannot prosecute your cause in both of these arms of Government. And the standing orders in any event prohibits him from doing so.”
Nandlall contended that the APNU parliamentarian appears to have been “ill-advised” in pursuing the matter through both judicial and legislative channels.
“I don’t know if Mr Campbell is not seeking legal advice, or those advising him are ill-advising him,” he remarked. “These are established, uncontroverted principles of law and Parliamentary practice that at least one should familiarise themselves with as you are about to go into Parliament.”
The Attorney General also dismissed the proposed amendments as trivial and lacking any substantive change to the current law.
The existing section of the NRF Act reads: “All withdrawals from the Fund shall be deposited into the Consolidated Fund and shall be used only to finance – (a) national development priorities, including an initiative aimed at realising an inclusive green economy; (b) essential projects that are directly related to ameliorating the effect of a major natural disaster.”
“When I examine what Mr Campbell is seeking to amend the Act to achieve, I come to the conclusion that the purported amendment is more stylistic. It is more a matter of form than of substance. It’s a matter of splitting hairs,” Nandlall said.
Comparing Campbell’s proposed wording to the existing provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act, he argued that both versions say virtually the same thing.
“Look at what Mr Campbell wants to add and look at the Act. And tell me if there’s any material difference,” he stated.
“Apart from the prohibition imposed by the standing order, the purported amendments themselves lack merit, and it’s almost an abuse of the Parliamentary process. And it would be insultive to any Government that this amendment is invited to review the Government’s legislation but to make no serious changes to it.”
Nandlall was unequivocal in his assessment of the bill’s merit, declaring, “This set of amendments that Campbell wants the National Assembly to consider, in my humble and respectful view, ought not to see the light of day. Because it’s abysmal and fails to meet the required standards, and it is prohibitive by the relevant standing orders.”
The Attorney General further suggested that the move highlights the inexperience of the Opposition benches in the new Parliament, describing the APNU cohort as “perhaps the most inexperienced grouping of parliamentarians since independence.”
Campbell’s bill – Bill 12 of 2025 – was submitted on November 3, the same day the 13th Parliament convened. It seeks to amend provisions governing withdrawals from the fund, including how deposits to the Consolidated Fund are treated.