Attorney-General (AG) Mr. Anil Nandlal hastily withdrew from the case he had filed against Brigadier David Granger, Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Raphael Trotman, Speaker of the National Assembly.
The AG, on the 3rd December 2012, filed a Notice of withdrawal and discontinuance in the High Court of the Supreme Court in Action No. 69/CM of 2012.
Attorney-General (AG) Mr. Anil Nandlal hastily withdrew from the case he had filed against Brigadier David Granger, Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Raphael Trotman, Speaker of the National Assembly.
The AG, on the 3rd December 2012, filed a Notice of withdrawal and discontinuance in the High Court of the Supreme Court in Action No. 69/CM of 2012.
On the 13th day of September 2012, the AG had filed the said action seeking declarations that: The motion of no confidence, in Minister Clement Rohee, moved in the National Assembly, on the 25th day of July 2012, by Brigadier Granger, and duly passed on the 30th day of July 2012, and the Resolution No. 18 of 2012, passed in the National Assembly on Monday 30th day of July 2012, were both unconstitutional, unlawful and violative of the doctrine of separation of powers.
On the 30th day of October 2012, a Summons to strike out the said action was filed, on behalf of Brigadier Granger, by Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Basil Williams, MP, in association with Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S.C. and several other lawyers.
In the Affidavit in Support of that Summons, Brigadier Granger claimed that: The AG’s action was without merit and misconceived; that Article 171(1) of the Constitution itself empowered every Member of the National Assembly to introduce any Bill, or propose any motion for debate in, or may present any Petition to the Assembly; and the same shall be disposed of according to the rules of procedure in the Assembly.
The said Affidavit further contended that Article 165 of the Constitution provides that the National Assembly may regulate its own procedures and make rules for that purpose.That in light of these provisions where Members of Parliament invoke them, no claim can succeed in a court of law on the grounds claimed by the AG.
When the Summons came up for hearing on the 28th day of November 2012, before Chief Justice Ian Chang, the AG was conspicuously absent, and sent a State Counsel to seek an adjournment.
APNU’s Shadow Minister for Legal Affairs, Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Basil Williams, MP, sees the discontinuance of the Motion, by the AG as a vindication of the position of APNU, that the Court has no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of the National Assembly, even if irregular, unless a constitutional breach was occasioned.
The AG’s withdrawal of his action must be taken as a concession, that there was no constitutional breach, when the National Assembly passed the Motion of No Confidence, by Brigadier Granger, in Minister Clement Rohee.
APNU contends that the solution to resolving gridlock in the National Assembly lies, not in the Courts, but rather in the willingness of all parties to work cooperatively in the interest of all of the people of Guyana, within and without that the hallowed National Assembly.
Having lost the first court action, when he sought to have the court hold, as unconstitutional, the voting for the composition of the Committee of Selection and the composition of all National Assembly committees, unless they were composed in proportion to the seats obtained by the Parliamentary parties, at the 28th November 2011 General and Regional Elections, the AG is now seeking to avoid a further embarrassment.
When the matter came up before the learned Chief Justice on Wednesday 5th December 2012, the AG was again absent, and he awarded costs to Brigadier Granger’s lawyers in the sum of $75,000.00 dollars each.
