High Court Judge to rule on validity of NRF Act today

More than one year after main Parliamentary Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Witter had filed legal proceedings challenging the December 2021 passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act, Justice Navindra Singh is scheduled to rule today on this matter.
On the night of December 29, 2021, Opposition Members of Parliament dislodged the Mace from its position at the desk of the Clerk of the National Assembly, and protested in an attempt to prevent the Natural Resource Fund Bill from being passed.

Jones and Witter (the claimants), in their court case against the Government, are contending that
due to the absence of the Parliamentary Mace – the most significant symbol in the National Assembly – and because some members of the National Assembly had not been seated, the NRF Act cannot be regarded as being lawfully passed.
At one point in proceedings in the National Assembly, the Speaker’s Personal Assistant was seen latching onto the Mace as he lay on the floor in an attempt to secure it, while Opposition Parliamentarians stood by hurling racial slurs and taunts at him. However, the Opposition’s protest and their mounting calls for the Bill to be sent to a Special Select Committee had no effect, as the Government went ahead and passed the Bill.
House Speaker Manzoor Nadir is, however, adamant that the NRF Act was lawfully passed. He noted that a replica Mace was in place, and that almost all Parliaments in the Westminster System have two Maces present, in case one is not found, or has been stolen.

In his Affidavit in Defence, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, a named respondent, contended that the court action is an abuse of the court process, and is without any legal basis. As such, he has urged the court to dismiss the matter.
According to him, there is no principle known to the law – neither does either the Constitution or the Standing Orders of the National Assembly require – that the Mace must be present and in place for Parliament to exercise its constitutional power to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the country.
He argued that whether or not the Mace is in place, or whether an instrument can be used as a Mace, the purpose of the Mace and matters connected to Parliament are matters over which the High Court has no jurisdiction, as those matters constitute procedural matters of Parliament, over which the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution.

In any event, Nandlall further argued, the Mace has “no relevance and place” in the exercise of Parliament’s constitutional power and authority to make laws.
In their claim, Jones and Witter are seeking a number of declarations, including one that the conduct of the business of the House without the Mace is illegal, and another that the later passage of the NRF Bill was illegal. They argue that this is contrary to constitutional values of the rule of law, democracy, inclusive governance, and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
The Opposition’s position is that civil society bodies were excluded from consultations on the Bill.
Witter argued that under Article 154A of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, he has a fundamental right to political participation in the conduct of public affairs; and that right was violated with the passage of the Bill.
In this regard, the trade unionist is asking the court to declare that pursuant to Article 154A, the Government, in formulating an NRF Policy, had a responsibility to engage in consultation.
Nandlall, on the other hand, has submitted that a lack of consultation does not, in any manner, affect the lawful power and authority of Parliament.
He deposed, “It will be contended that the debates among the elected representatives of the people in the National Assembly, which is a component of the legislative process, constitutes consultation.”
He said the Natural Resource Fund Bill received widespread national consultation, and to support his argument, he reminded that the legislation was a promise contained in his party’s manifesto for the 2020 National Elections – a document he has included as an exhibit.

He said the manifesto itself was a product of five years of public consultation, from 2015 to 2020; across all 10 regions, including a grand public consultation held at New Thriving Restaurant at Providence, EBD on February 17, 2019.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Attorney General has argued, he “most resolutely” submits that the Natural Resource Fund Act was lawfully, validly, and properly passed, and received the due assent of President Dr Irfaan Ali in accordance with the Constitution.
The Government has said that the NRF Act will ensure the security, transparency, and accountability that Guyanese need in order to benefit from the oil and gas revenues.
The law provides for a governance structure on how money in the Natural Resource Fund would be used, with continuous public disclosures, audits, and parliamentary approvals.
Since passage of that legislation, Government has gone on to establish the Natural Resource Fund Board. Following parliamentary approval, the Government has made several withdrawals from the fund, amounting to tens of billions of dollars, which were transferred to the Consolidated Fund to finance national development priorities.
However, Jones and Witter are seeking court orders necessary to ensure that the Natural Resource Fund is replenished to the extent of all sums disbursed from it.
Besides the Attorney General, Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh; House Speaker Manzoor Nadir; Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs; and the Parliament Office, are the other respondents. The claimants are being represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Canada-based Guyanese lawyer Selwyn Pieters.
Included on the legal team for the respondents are the Attorney General, Deputy Solicitor General Deborah Kumar, and Attorneys-at-Law Sase Gunraj and Kamal Ramkarran.