Jones tells court Nadir prevented APNU+AFC MPs from speaking
-judge rejects Pieters’ application for recusal
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones has maintained that notwithstanding several of his colleagues being slated to speak on what has become the controversial passage of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill last year, they were never allowed by House Speaker Manzoor Nadir.
Jones was at the time testifying before High Court Judge Navindra Singh, who is hearing the case brought by the main
APNU+AFC opposition which is contending that because of the absence of the authentic mace from the parliamentary chamber and members not being seated during the voting process, the Bill could not be regarded as having been lawfully passed.
Just before the proceedings commenced, attorney Selwyn Pieters—one of Jones’ lawyers—made an application for Justice Singh to recuse himself from hearing the case citing potential bias, which he said would hinder the judge from adjudicating the case fairly.
Pieters said that when the matter was called on Tuesday, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, as protocol dictates, took him to be introduced to Justice Singh, since it was his (Pieters’) first time appearing before that Judge.
Pieters said that while the Judge greeted Forde cordially, he was hostile to him, stating that he did not care to be introduced to him.
Pieters said that reference was made to comments he had made some years ago when he was part of a prison commission of inquiry regarding the sentencing style of that Judge who is known for imposing hefty sentences, which have been routinely reduced by Guyana’s apex court—the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Pieters’ contention was that for the Judge to have held that ire against him personally after so many years, illustrated that there was a personal bias against him, and which would hinder Justice Singh from hearing the case fairly and impartially.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC, who is among the defendants in the action, however, advanced that the law was clear regarding the grounds on which one can allege bias before asking a Judge to recuse himself or herself.
He argued that Pieters had failed to establish any such grounds, and submitted that he was instead “judge-shopping,” which is not allowed.
Against this background, the AG asked that the application be refused.
Justice Singh in dismissing the application said that Pieters had failed to establish any grounds of bias, or that he was even biased to him.
“The Court did not wish to be introduced to Mr. Pieters. I do not know that that is a ground for bias,” Justice Singh said, before finally dismissing the application.
Ruckus
When the trial proceeded thereafter, Nandlall sought to illustrate in his crossexamination of Jones that the “ruckus” created by the opposition members who were not seated as per parliamentary protocol on the night of the passage of the Bill, hindered them from speaking.
While admitting that his side of the House did leave their seats in protest at the passage of the Bill which they wanted to first be sent to a special select committee for further consideration before any passage, Jones said that the Speaker even before that, denied opposition members from speaking.
In fact he said that Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC) faction of the opposition coalition, Khemraj Ramjattan, who at no time left his seat, was also denied his right to speak.
Jones testified that contrary to parliamentary protocol, the Speaker did not allow himself to be guided by the speaking
list presented to him of those who were slated to make presentations on the opposition side.
Jones said that as the parliamentary Standing Order provides, himself and Gail Teixeira, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance and Chief Whip for the government side, signed the list of all the persons who were to speak on the bill, which also included opposition MPs, but that that was not followed by the Speaker.
At the hearing yesterday, Jones was shown an exhibit which he admitted formed part of his case-file with names of the persons who he said were supposed to speak, but that copy had neither his, nor Teixeira’s signatures.
When questioned, he told Nandlall that the list, which according to protocol, had to be completed in triplicate, all had the required signatures, though the one exhibited yesterday had only the names.
Jones’ legal team led by Senior Counsel Forde contends, however, that there is a copy in the file with the required signatures which they will exhibit when the time comes to re-examine their client.
When asked about the reason for opposition MPs not being seated, Jones said that they had risen to protest any purported passage of the bill without it being sent for further consideration before a special select committee and also to have their voices heard.
He confirmed with Nandlall that the Speaker had not at the time given them permission to leave their seats, nor to descend into the well of the Chamber as they had done; but Jones advanced that their vociferous protest was a bid to ensure that their dissatisfaction was heard.
Regarding the removal of the mace from the Assembly, Jones said that he is aware of some of his opposition colleagues so doing, and confirmed a tug-ofwar between those persons and parliamentary staff for control of the mace.
He, however, refused to accept that
what was used in its stead thereafter was a “replacement mace.” In fact he said that he knows of no such existence of a replacement mace or a replica.
He confirmed when asked by Justice Singh, that “something else was used,” not in place of the mace, but “instead of the mace.”
When the trial started back in September, Ramjattan remained adamant that he was denied an opportunity to speak on the Bill even though he had at all material times remained seated.
The trial continues on December 9th when Nandlall will continue his crossexamination of Jones.
Background
The action was filed in the name of Jones and trade unionist Norris Witter.
On December 29th, members of the main opposition coalition, in a failed bid to derail the passage of the bill, attempted to seize the ceremonial mace—the symbol of authority in the House.
At a press conference on the day following the ruckus in the National Assembly, Nadir remained adamant that the Bill had been legally passed.
Via what was then their FDA, Jones and Witter sought a number of declarations, including that the conduct of the business of the House in the absence of the mace and subsequent passage of the Bill were illegal.
They contended, among other things, that the procedure went against constitutional values of the rule of law, democracy, and inclusive governance and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
Nadir’s contention has always been that a replica mace was in place at the time the vote was taken.
He had previously told the press that the mace used at the sitting at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre was an exact replica of the original mace presented to the National Assembly at the time of independence.
Among the orders Jones and Witter are seeking are that all actions taken by anyone, including the
Minister of Finance, pursuant to the passage of the bill, or the constitution of any Board under the NRF, be declared null and void and of no effect.
They are also asking the court to grant any order necessary to ensure that the NRF be replenished to the extent of all sums disbursed from the Fund, inclusive of any Appropriation Act.
Nandlall had asked the court to strike out the action, arguing, among other things, that it is an abuse of process and baseless.