Gov’t now wants CCJ to ‘settle the law’ on decision to oust Parliamentary Secretaries from National Assembly
More than a year after Guyana’s Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be elected and non-elected members at the same time, the Appeal Court has upheld the ruling.
The decision has in effect rendered as unlawful the appointment of Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries by President Irfaan Ali.
But hours after the Appeal Court ruling was delivered on Tuesday, Attorney General Anil Nandlall signalled the government’s intention to further appeal the matter at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Nandlall said the government’s hope is that the CCJ will “settle the law on this crucial constitution question.”
“We will be appealing to the Caribbean Court of Justice. I believe that it is imperative that we clarify this area of the law,” Nandlall added.
Although two local courts have already ruled against the appointments, Nandlall said the matter remains an important constitutional issue.
He also eyes a possible win for the government at the CCJ.
“The Court of Appeal has ruled against us, as the Court of Appeal has done on many occasions and we have appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice and the CCJ reversed the Court of Appeal decision,” Nandlall reminded.
Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon – candidates of the PPP in the last general elections – were removed from the Nationally Assembly even before the High Court’s ruling that they cannot legally sit in the National Assembly as non-voting members.
It was Christopher Jones, the Opposition Chief Whip, who on December 22, 2022 , challenged the lawfulness of the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretaries. He argued that Browne and Ramkisson, by virtue of being candidates, were barred from being in the National Assembly as Parliamentary Secretaries.
Browne and Ramkissoon were appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, but the Chief Justice had ruled that the positions are meant for so-called “technocrats” or those who were not candidates in the elections.
Jones’ case was that the Constitutional legal principles in relation to the appointment of Technocratic Ministers (those who are not political candidates in an election) are identical to the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries.
Browne and Ramkisson were sworn in on September 15, 2020. Browne was designated as the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs while Ramkissoon was designated as the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Jones relied heavily on the decision of Chief Justice, Ian Chang, SC, in the case of Desmond Morian vs The Attorney General and the Speaker of the National Assembly, as affirmed by the decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2016 dated 23rd day of January 2020.
In that case, both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that the then Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection, Keith Scott and the Minister of Citizenship Winston Felix, could not sit in the House as Technocrat Ministers on the basis that they were listed on the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) List of Candidates.
Though Nandlall, while in Opposition, was the lead attorney representing Morian in that case and won it at both the High Court and Appeal Court levels, he is now arguing against the issue.
The Attorney General had submitted that the decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal in the said case was not binding because the appellants’ only challenge in the appeal (the case of The Attorney General and The Speaker of the National Assembly v Desmond Morian) was the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine the matter and abandoned their grounds of appeal.
He contended that the Court of Appeal overruled the jurisdictional objection and since the Appellants did not pursue the other ground, the appeal was automatically dismissed; in those circumstances, there was no determination of the appeal on its merits.
The Attorney General further contended that it is the ratio descendi of a case which constitutes binding precedent, and the ratio descendi in the Court of Appeal, was in relation to the jurisdictional point as there was no other reasoning in relation to the merits of the appeal.
