CoA reserves decision in Parliamentary Secretaries’ case

With a plethora of arguments submitted by attorneys on Thursday, the Court of Appeal (CoA) has indicated that it will notify parties if it has any queries.
Otherwise, the panel will deliberate and rule in the appeal against the annulment of Vickash Ramkissoon and Sarah Browne’s appointments as Parliamentary Secretaries to the Amerindian Affairs and Agriculture Ministries respectively.
The appellate court bench comprised acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.

Back in December 2020, Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones had moved to the High Court challenging Browne and Ramkissoon’s appointments. He had contended that Browne and Ramkissoon cannot be appointed as non-elected parliamentarians, since they were named on the List of Candidates presented by the PPP/C for the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. This, he had contended, made them elected members of the National Assembly, since their names were extracted from that party’s list.
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, in cancelling their appointments, had relied on Attorney General vs Morian, which was first decided by now-late Chief Justice Ian Chang, whose decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
In 2015, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) member Dennis Morian had filed a constitutional motion against then-Attorney General Basil Williams, SC, challenging the legality of the appointments of former A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) Technocrat Ministers Keith Scott and Winston Felix.
Felix, who was at the time the Minister of Citizenship, and Scott the Minister with responsibility for Labour, were candidates on the APNU/AFC’s List of Candidates for the 2015 General and Regional Elections.
In 2016, the now-late Justice Chang declared that both Scott and Felix were unlawfully and unconstitutionally occupying seats in the National Assembly due to their status as elected members (named on the Coalition’s List of Candidates). Williams had appealed Justice Chang’s decision to the Court of Appeal, but lost.
Applying the reasoning in the Attorney General vs Morian, Chief Justice George, in April 2021, had held, inter alia, that Browne and Ramkissoon’s appointments violated Articles 113, 186, and 103 (3) of the Constitution. She had ruled that they cannot be appointed as non-elected Members of Parliament (MPs) since they were named on the List of Candidates presented by the PPP/C.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, then appealed Justice George’s decision to the appeal court, arguing, among other things, that her findings are erroneous and misconceived in law.
“The decision does not accord with the clear and unambiguous binding language of the Constitution,” he had argued in one of his grounds of appeal. According to him, the Chief Justice erred and misdirected herself in law by failing to appreciate that although there are similarities in the two cases (Technocrat Ministers/ Parliamentary Secretaries), there are also differences in the constitutional regime regarding the appointment of Technocratic Ministers in comparison to Parliamentary Secretaries.
He had submitted that historically, in Guyana, Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed from among members of the National Assembly, and the category of persons who may be appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries was expanded in the 1980 Constitution to include persons who were qualified to be elected.
In fact, he reminded that in the ninth Parliament, Pauline Sukhai, now Amerindian Affairs Minister, whose name appeared on the List of Candidates for the PPP/C, was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary to assist the Tourism Minister as a non-elected member of the National Assembly, without any objection for the duration of that Parliament.
He also reminded that during the tenth Parliament, Joseph Hamilton, now Labour Minister, whose name did not appear on the List of Candidates for PPP/C or any other List of Candidates, was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary as a non-elected member without any objection for the duration of that Parliament.
Having regard to these circumstances, Nandlall had argued that the appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling is not only grounded in merit, but raises fundamental issues of interpretation of the Constitution, as well as issues integral to Guyana’s parliamentary and constitutional democracy.
In the extant appeal, Nandlall is being represented by T&T Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, while Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde is appearing for Jones.