| Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang is expected to hand down a decision on whether the court has jurisdiction/authority to hear a motion presented by Attorney-at-law Anil Nandlall, seeking to challenge the Parliamentary status of two Government Ministers.The motion was brought against the government, by PPP member Desmond Morian.In the legal challenge, Morian listed articles 60, 103, 105, 160 and 232 of the Constitution, and Chapter 1:01, as the basis for which he is questioning the appointment of APNU+AFC members Winston Felix and Keith Scott to Parliament as Technocratic Ministers.According to Morian, the names (Scott and Felix) were not extracted from the coalition’s list of candidates and they therefore did not fit the criteria for the positions.As such, he is seeking a declaration by the Court that the two men are not lawful members of the National Assembly and an order that they be prevented from sitting in the Assembly unless their names are extracted from the Coalition’s list.Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, are named as respondents in the matter.Chief Justice (Ag) Ian ChangAt the initial hearing, the AG objected to the motion. He argued that although the Court has exclusive rights to deal with the matter, it was incorrectly placed before the Court. It is his position that since this is a matter which touches and concerns the validity and legality of “elected Members of Parliament, it must be done by way of an election petition.”“We are dealing with an issue that the court has no jurisdiction to proceed on, a motion filed by Mr. Nandlall, because Mr. Nandlall is questioning the right of two members to sit in the National Assembly. By questioning the right of two members to sit in the National Assembly, he is therefore questioning the election, and he must (present) this by way of elections petition,” Williams had argued.However, Nandlall contended that the AG has completely misconstrued the issue and the constitution relative to such matters. Nandlall had pointed out that the applicant in the matter, did not seek to question the elections or those elected to sit in the National Assembly, but rather, the selection of the two persons (Felix and Scott) to the Parliament as Technocratic Ministers.When the arguments continued before the Chief Justice yesterday, both parties reiterated their positions. At the end of the proceeding, Justice Chang informed the Court, that he will consider the positions and rule on the matter of Jurisdiction at a later date. As such, notices will be sent out to the parties involved in the case, as regards the decision.Following the appointment of Scott and Felix as Technocratic (expert or skilled in their field) Members of the National Assembly, the PPP sent out a strongly worded statement noting their objection.The party contended that “Articles 103 (3) and 105 of the Constitution and laws pronouncing on the eligibility of appointment of Technocratic Ministers, do not confer Technocratic status on these persons already sworn in by President David Granger as Ministers.”Pointing out that Felix and Scott are listed on the APNU+AFC National Top Up list of Candidates at numbers 24 and 46 respectively, the party called on the Clerk of the National Assembly not to administer the Oath as Member of Parliament to these persons.”But the Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs had insisted that the appointments were perfectly legal.Isaacs told the media that a closer examination of the said Articles, 103 (3) and 105 of the Constitution would reveal that they do not adequately define a non-elected Member. |
