A request made by lawyer Selwyn Pieters, for eight APNU/AFC Members of Parliament (MPs) to attend sittings of the National Assembly despite their being suspended by the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges for unacceptable behaviour, has been denied by High Court Judge Damone Younge.

Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Maureen Philadelphia were officially suspended last month for participating in the infamous grabbing of the Speaker’s Mace and disrupting the sitting of the National Assembly on December 29, 2021.
The next sitting of the National Assembly is on Monday, August 8.
Following investigations, the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges delivered its report in mid-July, recommending the suspension of eight Opposition MPs for violating Standing Orders and established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Parliamentarians.

The suspended MPs are, however, challenging their suspension in the High Court.
Against Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC; House Speaker Manzoor Nadir; and Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs, 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.
Further, they are seeking an order suspending any decision, resolution, or other determination made by the National Assembly to suspend them; and a further order that they be allowed 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.
During a hearing of their Fixed Date Application (FDA) on Thursday, Justice Damone Younge said that while she has heard submissions from the respective parties, at this stage of the proceedings, she is not minded to grant any interim order without having considered Nandlall’s Notice of Application (NoA). In that application, the Attorney General is seeking an order granting an extension of time to file and serve an Application in Defence to the MPs’ amended FDA filed on July 28.
The Opposition MPs have been granted until August 8 to file an Affidavit in Answer to the AG’s NoA. Arguments on the application for an extension of time will be heard on August 10.
Suspension
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 House, media reporters, and the public, both locally and internationally.
Additionally, each Opposition Member 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. With these on hand, 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 therefore determined that the appropriate sanction available for the National Assembly to impose is suspension from service in the House.
‘Unaware’
Notwithstanding, 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…”









