The High Court on Monday dismissed the legal challenge mounted against the validity of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act and in effect, found that the Bill was indeed passed in the National Assembly on December 29, 2021.
The judgement was handed down in the High Court by Justice Navindra Singh.
In his written judgement, Justice Singh dismissed the arguments brought by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter.
Through their lawyers, the duo argued that the NRF Bill was not validly passed for several reasons including that the Speaker’s Mace was not in its rightful place, the proceedings of the National Assembly went beyond the stipulated time without a Motion, there were inadequate consultations on the Bill and that the Speaker refused to allow Opposition Parliamentarians to participate in the debate of the Bill.
Justice Singh did not agree with these assertions and provided reasons for each of the issues he dismissed.
As it relates to the presence of the mace, Justice Singh stated that the absence of the Speaker’s Mace in the National Assembly during the passage of the NRF Bill did not invalidate the passage of that Bill.
In fact, he stated: “The presence of the mace in the National Assembly is not mandated by the Constitution of the Laws of Guyana and therefore its absence cannot result in the passage of the Bill being unconstitutional or unlawful.”
On the proceedings going beyond the stipulated time, he noted that time for the sittings of the National Assembly is not mandated by the Constitution or the Laws of Guyana. As such, that cannot affect the legality or constitutionality of the Bill passed.
It was also stated that consultations with stakeholders or the citizenry of Guyana are not required before enacting legislation since legislators are elected to serve as representatives of the people. It was, however, noted that there were avenues for engagements including the debate of the Bill in the House.
After dismissing these and other arguments, Justice Singh awarded $250,000 in costs to each defendant against each claimant. These are to be paid on or before July 19, 2023.
Meanwhile, Member of Parliamentarian and lawyer Roysdale Forde told reporters that he will consult with his clients before determining whether the ruling will be appealed.
This case followed disruptions that culminated in the seizure of the Speaker’s Mace in the National Assembly and other events that unfolded on December 29, 2021 as the government sought to pass the new NRF Bill.
On that night, Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) protested in the House as the Bill was about to be voted on and passed and when their shouting and blowing of whistles did nothing to prevent the government from moving forward MP Annette Ferguson seized the Mace from the Chamber.
Opposition MPs have also contended that the Bill was not validly passed because the mace was not in place at the time of the vote. It was also contended that opposition parliamentarians hadn’t an opportunity to vote on the Bill as it was put to a vote while its MPs were out of their seats and the chamber.
Because of differing accounts of what transpired on December 29, 2021, Navindra Singh last year asked members of the government and opposition to present their statements of case to allow for the case challenging the NRF Act to proceed.
This statement of case was expected to allow the parties- that is, the applicants (the opposition) and the defendants (the government)- to set out their case in legal proceedings.
