See statement from the Attorney General Chambers:
Today, the Honourable Justice, Nareshwar Harnanan, upheld the jurisdictional objection made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo disputing the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application filed by Opposition Members of Parliament, Christopher Jones and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Bharrat Jagdeo’s seat had become vacant in the National
As a consequence, the Court dismissed the case filed by Jones and Sarabo-Halley and granted costs in the sum of $250,000 to each Respondent namely, the Attorney General of Guyana, the Speaker of the National Assembly and Vice-President, Bharrat
In these proceedings, the Attorney General and the Speaker of the National Assembly both made submissions, in writing, supporting the Application filed by Bharrat Jagdeo. They contended that the absence of a member of the National Assembly is part of the internal proceedings of the National Assembly, and that by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (the rights, privileges and immunities of Parliament), these matters are exclusively for the determination of Parliament. Barring only a constitutional breach, the Court, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, is precluded from enquiring into such matters.
The Court, in its ruling, agreed with the 2023 decision of Younge J, in Tabitha Sarabo Halley, Mp et al v. AG the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly (FDA- 994/2022), that when it comes to the internal operations of the National Assembly, it is the National Assembly that is vested with the exclusive control over the management of its own proceedings, subject only to the Constitution. The Honourable Judge affirmed that Parliament must have the freedom and functional independence to conduct its
The Court ruled that the vacation of a member’s seat in Parliament occurs by operation of law, but it does not necessarily follow that the Speaker has no prior role or function. The Standing Orders, which govern and regulate the internal proceedings of Parliament, must be applied, interpreted and enforced by the National Assembly. In the circumstances, the Court was of the view that the question of whether Bharrat Jagdeo’s seat in the National Assembly had become vacant has not
Background:
On 8th February 2024, Jones and Sarabo-Halley, filed an application, asking the Court for a number of declaratory
They alleged in the Application that for eleven (11) consecutive Sittings of the National Assembly within a period of two (2) consecutive months, the Hon. Bharrat Jagdeo, was absent from the National Assembly, and has consequently, vacated his seat in accordance with Articles 56 and 156 of the Constitution and Standing Order 106(2) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly – the consequence being that Bharrat Jagdeo could no longer hold office as a Member of Parliament and/or the Vice President.
On 23rd April 2024, the Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, filed a Notice of Application disputing the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the Fixed Date Application. In essence, he contended that:
the Fixed Date Application of Jones and Sarabo-Halley is premature;
the vacancy in a seat in the Assembly does not occur by automatic operation of Articles 54 and 156 of the Constitution and Standing Order 106(2);
the Speaker of the Assembly, the only person charged with the responsibility of maintaining order in the Assembly and enforcing the Standing Orders, must first determine that a seat is vacant and then so declare;
this determination and declaration have not yet been made; and
the said determination and declaration are entirely internal proceedings of the National Assembly, over which the Court has no
The Attorney General and the Speaker of the National Assembly in support of that Notice of Application also contended, in summary, that:
Jones and Sarabo-Halley have approached the wrong forum for a declaration to oust the Hon. Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo from his seat in the National Assembly;
that jurisdiction, at this stage, belongs to the National Assembly;
the facts as alleged by Jones and Sarabo-Halley in the Fixed Date Application and in their Affidavit in Support are not admitted;
given this dispute, an inquiry must first be conducted to determine whether the Standing Orders of the National Assembly were breached and that inquiry is one which the High Court cannot conduct, as this is a matter for the Assembly and Speaker upon an examination of, inter alia, the relevant privileged parliamentary documents;
Article 156 is unenforceable and or inoperable without Standing Order 106, enforcement of which is a matter for the Speaker;
this matter has not reached the threshold of an Article 163 (1) (b) (iii) petition as the requisite inquiry has not yet been conducted; and
in any event, the said Opposition MPs are procedurally barred from bringing this claim under Article 163 (1) (b) (iii).
In defending the Notice of Application of the Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the Attorney-at-Law for Jones and Sarabo-Halley, Mr. Roysdale Forde, SC, mainly contended that Article 163(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution gives the Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the Fixed Date Application.
The Court rejected Forde’s argument and ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine the Application of Jones and Sarabo-Halley.
The Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC MP personally appeared, along with the Deputy Solicitor General, Ms. Shoshanna Lall, Principal Legal Advisor, Ms. Ronetta Sargent-Prince and State Counsel, Mr. Pierre Squires.
The Speaker of the National Assembly was represented by V. Satram, while the Hon. Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo was represented by Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Viera and Abhimanyu Dev.
