The Demerara Full Court on Friday unanimously refused to grant interim orders and injunctions requested by eight suspended APNU/AFC Members of Parliament (MPs) which, among other things, would have allowed them to attend sittings of the National Assembly.
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, Ganesh Mahipaul, Sherod Duncan, Natasha Singh-Lewis, Annette Ferguson, Vinceroy Jordan, Tabitha Sarabo-Halley and Maureen Philadelphia were, in July, officially suspended for participating in the infamous grabbing of the Speaker’s Mace — the most significant symbol in the National Assembly – and for disrupting the sitting of the National Assembly on December 29, 2021 during their protest against the second and third readings of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill.
Through Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, the MPs had mounted a challenge against their suspension at the Demerara High Court, arguing, inter alia, that it was unconstitutional.
Pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter, they had requested several conservatory orders and injunctions which, if granted, would have allowed them to attend Parliament.
But High Court Judge Damone Younge declined to grant the orders requested, including an interim order suspending any decision to suspend these MPs. In so doing, Justice Younge declared that, firstly, she wanted to determine if she has jurisdiction to hear the case, before addressing her mind to the reliefs the MPs are seeking. Consequently, she has adjourned the case until November 1, 2022 for a full hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, as well as to address an application filed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, for the case to be dismissed.
The MPs then turned to the Full Court to appeal Justice Younge’s refusal to grant the reliefs they requested.
Finding that the issues raised in the suspended MPs’ appeal were “premature” and identical to those raised before Justice Younge, the Full Court — comprising Justices Sandil Kissoon and Jo-Ann Barlow — dismissed their appeal without awarding costs against them.
In delivering the court’s ruling, Justice Barlow held that since there is no final decision/order by the lower court on the issues: of the question of jurisdiction and the grant of conservatory orders/injunctions, there can be no appeal to the Full Court.
Justice Barlow has made clear that the Full Court has not pronounced on the issue of jurisdiction, only that, given the grave public interest nature of the case, it must be determined and disposed of with alacrity.
Before the Full Court, Forde had contended that the absence of his clients in the National Assembly would not only negatively affect the interest of the persons who had elected them, but also the strength of the Parliamentary Opposition and the general public interest.
Further, he aruged that their suspension would deny them the right, as MPs, to examine and approve the Government’s proposed budgetary expenditure and withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund.
Alluding to the Government’s announcement of its intention to table amendments to electoral legislation at the next sitting of the National Assembly, Forde had submitted that the Parliamentarians’ presence in the House is vital.
The decision to suspend the eight APNU/AFC MPs was made by the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. Among other things, that Committee had found that the behaviour of these MPs during the sitting had violated Standing Orders and established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Parliamentarians.
The Committee of Privileges was tasked with considering a Privilege Motion which stated that the eight Opposition Members, in attempting to prevent the second and third readings of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill, No. 20 of 2021, had conducted themselves in a gross, disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful manner, and had repeatedly ignored the authority of the National Assembly and that of the Speaker, thereby committing contempt and breaches of privileges.
Following investigations, the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges delivered its report in mid-July, recommending the suspension of these eight Opposition MPs for violating Standing Orders and established customs and practices regarding acceptable behaviour of Parliamentarians.
It was therefore determined that the appropriate sanction available for the National Assembly to impose is suspension from service in the House.
Consequently, Jones, Mahipaul, Duncan and Singh-Lewis were each suspended for four consecutive sittings: for attempting to prevent the second and third readings of the NRF Bill; for conducting themselves in a gross, disorderly, contumacious and disrespectful manner; and for repeatedly ignoring the authority of the Assembly and that of the Speaker, thereby committing contempt and breaches of privileges.
MPs Ferguson and Jordan were each suspended for six consecutive sittings for similar offences. However, their suspension was higher, since the Privileges Committee concurred that they had committed “serious violations which were severe and egregious, by unauthorisedly removing the Parliamentary Mace from its rightful position in a disorderly fashion, causing damage to the Mace; and injuring and assaulting a staff of the Parliament Office while attempting to remove the Mace from the Chamber”.
A similar suspension for six consecutive sittings was imposed against Sarabo-Halley, whose violations were found to be “severe and egregious with regard to unauthorisedly entering the Communication Control Room of the ACCC and destroying several pieces of audio-visual equipment, being public property”.
MP Philadelphia is also facing a suspension of six consecutive sittings over her severe and egregious violations, by which she “verbally assaulted a staff of the Parliament Office within the precincts of the National Assembly”.
