Appointment of parliamentary secretaries unlawful

-CJ rules

Chief Justice (CJ) (ag) Roxane GeorgeWiltshire SC yesterday declared the appointment of Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries to be unlawful, as well as their membership of the National Assembly.

In her ruling, the CJ noted that in accordance with case law authority, an Elected Member of the National Assembly not extracted from the List of Candidates, “cannot become a non-elected Member of the National Assembly by virtue of their appointment as Parliamentary Secretary.”

This was the specific contention of APNU+AFC MP Christopher Jones who had mounted the challenge against

Browne, Ramkissoon, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall.

In her ruling, Justice George-Wiltshire underscored that the appointees could not be permitted to hold such seats as Elected Members of the National Assembly with their names having not been extracted from the list of candidates which contested the general elections for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

Nandlall has since lodged an appeal. The judge said that to be a member of the National Assembly, their name would had to have been extracted from the List of Candidates to hold seats on behalf of

that list.

She said that having been elected on that List for the elections, their names would have to be extracted, without which the two cannot be members of the National Assembly.

In the circumstances, she said that Browne and Ramkissoon’s appointment as Parliamentary Secretaries and their membership of the National Assembly are unlawful.

Justice GeorgeWiltshire noted that while Nandlall had previously supported the case law authority of Desmond Morian v. Attorney General, when he was in opposition, he has now abandoned the principles laid down in that case which she said “is on all fours,” with the issue which needed to be resolved in the instant case.

The judge explained that the now-attorney general seemed to want to approbate and reprobate at the same time and skew the reasoning in the case to conveniently suit himself.

Last September, Browne and Ramkissoon were appointed under Article 186 of the Constitution which provides that Parliamentary Secretaries may be appointed from among persons who are qualified to be elected as members of the National Assembly.

Such Secretaries are appointed by the President to assist specific subject ministers and may respond to questions and debate matters in the Assembly; but they do not have voting rights.

Browne was appointed to Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai, while Ramkissoon was appointed to Minister of Agriculture, Zulfikar Mustapha.

Through his attorney Roysdale Forde SC, Jones had argued that the appointments were unlawful. He contended that the fundamental issue was not whether Browne and Ramkissoon were entitled and eligible to be appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, but whether they are entitled to be Members of the National Assembly by virtue of their appointment to the office of Parliamentary Secretary, at the time when they were elected Members of the House.

Referencing the Morian case, Jones had submitted that an Elected Member of the National Assembly not extracted from the List of Candidates, “cannot become a non-elected Member of the National Assembly by virtue of their appointment as Parliamentary Secretary.”

Jones had advanced that much turned on the fact that Browne and Ramkissoon were not extracted from the List of candidates of PPP/C to be the holders of any of the 33 seats that those Candidates have in

Assembly.

In a notice of appeal disseminated within minutes of the Chief Justice’s ruling, Nandlall said that he will be appealing the entire judgment which according to him the judge made several legal errors in arriving at.

Among other things, he said that she erred and was misconceived in law in relation to the reason for the decision in the Morian case, in that the issues raised in that appeal were wholly irrelevant and different to the issues raised in the matter before her.

According to him, the judge also erred and misdirected herself in law by using what he termed as the “wrong cannon of interpretation” to construe the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

Nandlall argues, too, that the Chief Justice’s decision is not supported by the evidence and is now hoping that the entire judgment would be set aside with costs.

The judge has ordered the parties to make submissions regarding the assessment of court costs no later than May 8th. the

National