Full Court declines to grant order for suspended APNU/AFC MPs to attend Parliament

By Feona Morrison

The Demerara Full Court on Friday unanimously refused to grant interim orders and injunctions requested by eight suspended APNU/AFC Members of Parliament (MPs) which, among other things, would have allowed them to attend sittings of the National Assembly.
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Maureen Philadelphia were, in July, officially suspended for participating in the infamous grabbing of the Speaker’s Mace — the most significant symbol in the National Assembly – and for disrupting the sitting of the National Assembly on December 29, 2021 during their protest against the second and third readings of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill.

Through Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, the MPs had mounted a challenge against their suspension at the Demerara High Court, arguing, inter alia, that it was unconstitutional. Pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter, they had requested several conservatory orders and injunctions which, if granted, would have allowed them to attend Parliament.
But High Court Judge Damone Younge declined to grant the orders requested, including an interim order suspending any decision to suspend these MPs. In so doing, Justice Younge declared that, firstly, she wanted to determine if she has jurisdiction to hear the case, before addressing her mind to the reliefs the MPs are seeking. Consequently, she has adjourned the case until November 1, 2022 for a full hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, as well as to address an application filed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, for the case to be dismissed.
The MPs then turned to the Full Court to appeal Justice Younge’s refusal to grant the reliefs they requested.

Full Court’s ruling
Finding that the issues raised in the suspended MPs’ appeal were “premature” and identical to those raised before Justice Younge, the Full Court — comprising Justices Sandil Kissoon and Jo-Ann Barlow — dismissed their appeal without awarding costs against them.
In delivering the court’s ruling, Justice Barlow held that since there is no final decision/order by the lower court on the issues: of the question of jurisdiction and the grant of conservatory orders/injunctions, there can be no appeal to the Full Court.
Justice Barlow has made clear that the Full Court has not pronounced on the issue of jurisdiction, only that, given the grave public interest nature of the case, it must be determined and disposed of with alacrity.
Justices Kissoon and Barlow commenced hearing arguments in the appeal at 13:00h on Friday. This lasted for a few hours, after which the court went into recess, and returned with its decision just after 16:00h.
Before the Full Court, Forde had contended that the absence of his clients in the National Assembly would not only negatively affect the interest of the persons who had elected them, but also the strength of the Parliamentary Opposition and the general public interest.
Further, he contended that their suspension would deny them the right, as MPs, to examine and approve the Government’s proposed budgetary expenditure and withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund.
Alluding to the Government’s announcement of its intention to table amendments to electoral legislation at the next sitting of the National Assembly, Forde had submitted that the Parliamentarians’ presence in the House is vital.

Findings
The decision to suspend the eight APNU/AFC MPs was made by the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. Among other things, that Committee had found that the behaviour of these MPs during the sitting had violated Standing Orders and established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Parliamentarians.
The Committee of Privileges was tasked with considering a Privilege Motion which stated that the eight Opposition Members, in attempting to prevent the second and third readings of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill, No. 20 of 2021, had conducted themselves in a gross, disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful manner, and had repeatedly ignored the authority of the National Assembly and that of the Speaker, thereby committing contempt and breaches of privileges.
Following investigations, the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges delivered its report in mid-July, recommending the suspension of these eight Opposition MPs for violating Standing Orders and established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Parliamentarians.
According to the Committee’s report, its recommendations were based on video recordings, statements by staff of the Parliament Office and the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), eyewitness accounts by other Members of the National Assembly, media reporters, and the public, both locally and internationally.
Additionally, each of these Opposition Members had been written to and asked to “show cause” why sanctions should not be meted out to them. Their responses were received and considered by the Committee. Armed with those responses, the Committee “found that the named MPs were in violation of the Standing Orders and established Customs and Practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Members in the Assembly.”
It was therefore determined that the appropriate sanction available for the National Assembly to impose is suspension from service in the House.

Reliefs
Against Attorney General Nandlall, House Speaker Manzoor Nadir, and Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs, the Opposition MPs are seeking an interim order suspending any decision, resolution, or other determination made by the National Assembly to suspend them.
They are requesting another interim order allowing them to perform their duties until they have been afforded the right to be heard before the Parliamentary Sessional Select Committee of Privileges, pending the hearing and determination of their case.
Further, they are seeking, among other things, a declaration that the report of the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges is unconstitutional, null, void, and of no legal effect; and that their suspension is a breach of the principles of natural justice, because their rights, as guaranteed under Article 144 (8) of the Constitution, have been infringed.

‘Unaware’
Notwithstanding the findings of the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges, the APNU/AFC Parliamentarians, in legal documents seen by this publication, contend that they are “unaware of any act of ours on the day in question falling in the category of gross disorderly conduct, contempt, and breaches of privileges, and that to the best of our recollection, on the day in question, our posture was no different from all other Members of Parliament who were present…”
According to them, they had specifically requested that the Committee of Privileges identify to them the Standing Orders or privileges they had supposedly violated, as this was essential if they were to effectively exercise the opportunity to show cause.
They complained that at no time were they invited to appear before the Committee of Privileges to be allowed a hearing, nor were they told what action of theirs had violated established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of MPs.
The Parliamentarians have argued that the report of the Committee of Privileges would be a published record that would forever inevitably affect their character and reputation. They argued that any suspension would further hinder them from representing the people who elected them to sit in the National Assembly, and would also prevent Mahipaul from functioning as a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
They contend, inter alia, that “any suspension will deprive (them) of their full salaries and of the opportunity to be representatives of the National Assembly and people of Guyana at national, regional, and international forums.”
Further, they submitted that their likely suspension is part and parcel of an unconstitutional scheme and/or device by the Government to utilise its majority in the National Assembly to silence and to reduce the numbers of sitting Parliamentary Opposition Members of Parliament.

No salaries, allowances
The Clerk of the National Assembly has since written the suspended Members of Parliament, informing them that, during the period of their suspension, they would not be paid salaries and allowances, and would not be entitled to some of the other benefits enjoyed by other Members of the House.
The Privileges Committee recommended that Jones, Mahipaul, Duncan and Singh-Lewis be each suspended for four consecutive sittings: for attempting to prevent the second and third readings of the NRF Bill; for conducting themselves in a gross, disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful manner; and for repeatedly ignoring the authority of the Assembly and that of the Speaker, thereby committing contempt and breaches of privileges.
A recommendation was also made for MPs Ferguson and Jordan to each be suspended for six consecutive sittings for similar offences. However, their suspension was higher, since the Committee concurred that they had committed “serious violations which were severe and egregious, by unauthorisedly removing the Parliamentary Mace from its rightful position in a disorderly fashion, causing damage to the Mace; and injuring and assaulting a staff of the Parliament Office while attempting to remove the Mace from the Chamber”.
And a similar recommendation of suspension for six consecutive sittings has been made against Sarabo-Halley, whose violations were found to be “severe and egregious with regard to unauthorisedly entering the Communication Control Room of the ACCC and destroying several pieces of audio-visual equipment, being public property”.
MP Philadelphia is also facing a suspension recommendation of six consecutive sittings over her severe and egregious violations, by which she “verbally assaulted a staff of the Parliament Office within the precincts of the National Assembly”.
The Privileges Committee is chaired by the House Speaker, and its members comprise both Government and Opposition MPs. Representing Government are: Prime Minister Brigadier (ret’d) Mark Phillips; Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC; Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Minister Gail Teixeira; Culture, Youth and Sport Minister Charles Ramson; and Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin.
Representing the Opposition APNU/AFC on the Privileges Committee are Khemraj Ramjattan; Roysdale Forde, SC; Geeta Chandan-Edmond, and David A Patterson.
It is understood that the Opposition Members did not participate in the last three of five Privileges Committee meetings. Hence, the other members, including the Chairman, had gone ahead and concluded the report with the recommendations for the suspension of the eight Opposition MPs.
Among the lawyers representing the suspended MPs are Selwyn Pieters and Khemraj Ramjattan.