Judge sets March 17, 2023 for ruling on legality of NRF Act

“I have every confidence that justice will prevail” – AG Nandlall

High Court Justice Navindra Singh is expected to make a ruling on the validity of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act at the Demerara High Court on March 17 at 09:00h.
On the night of December 29, 2021, A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) 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.
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Witter (the claimants) had earlier this year initiated legal proceedings against the Government, claiming 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.
The defendants in the claim are Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC; Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh; House Speaker Manzoor Nadir; Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs; and the Parliament Office.
The trial into the matter, which commenced on September 12, concluded on Friday, December 31, with one of the defendants calling their final witness, the Videography Manager at the Department of Public Information (DPI), Kennyann Bacchus.
Both sides have now closed their respective cases, and have been given up to February 10, 2023 to file written closing submissions. Submissions in reply have to be filed 10 days after, and Justice Singh will hand down his ruling on March 17, 2023.
Speaking with reporters after conclusion of the case, Nandlall expressed that he has every confidence that justice would prevail, and noted that the rule of law would win another battle. He also articulated his conviction that the matter should never have been filed.
The Attorney General shared, “That is what this case is about: one side [APNU/AFC] moving to the court to basically ask the court to vindicate their unlawful, unruly, and vulgar conduct in the National Assembly, and the rule of law will never countenance that type of behaviour. The law is not structured that way.
“The world saw their conduct; the world saw that they broke the Mace; the world saw or heard that they disrupted the microphone system, and by their conduct they disqualified themselves from speaking. And, lo and behold, they are moving the court now to essentially take advantage of their own wrongdoing; of their own misbehaviour; of their own misconduct,” Nandlall explained.

Replica Mace
At one point in the National Assembly’s proceedings, the Speaker’s Personal Assistant was seen latching onto the Mace as he lay on the floor in an attempt to secure it, while the Opposition Parliamentarians stood by hurling racial slurs and taunts at him. However, the Opposition’s protest and its mounting calls for the Bill to be sent to a Special Select Committee had no effect, as the Government passed the Bill.
House Speaker Nadir is, however, adamant that the NRF Act was lawfully passed. He noted that a replica Mace was in place, and explained that almost all Parliaments in the Westminster System have two Maces present, in case one is not found or has been stolen.

Abuse of the court process
In his Affidavit in Defence, Nandlall contended that the claim is an abuse of the court process, and is without any legal basis. In light of this contention, he has urged the court to dismiss the matter. According to the Attorney General, 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 they constitute procedural matters of Parliament over which the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution.
In any event, Nandlall argued, the Mace has “no relevance and place” in the exercise of Parliament’s constitutional power and authority to make laws.

Contrary to the rule of law
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, and another that the later passage of the NRF Bill, were 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 light of this, 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.

Manifesto promise
Nandlall has, however, 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 consultations, 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 of how these monies will be used, with continuous public disclosures, audits, and parliamentary approvals.
Since the passage of the legislature last December, the 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.
The pair was represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Canada-based Guyanese lawyer Selwyn Pieters. Included on the legal team for the defendants are the Attorney General, Deputy Solicitor General Deborah Kumar, and Attorneys-at-Law Sase Gunraj and Kamal Ramkarran.