The Caribbean Court of Justice today began hearing an appeal case filed by the Guyana Government through the Attorney General over the local Courts quashing of the appointments of two PPP Candidates at the last elections as Parliamentary Secretaries.

Through their Attorneys, led by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, the Government and the two candidates, Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon, are arguing that the Guyana Appeal Court was wrong to throw them out from the National Assembly for being unlawful members, since their names, while on their party’s list, were not among the 33 names extracted to take up seats in the National Assembly.

Browne and Ramkissoon’s contention is that they had been duly sworn in pursuant to Article 186(3) as non-voting members since at the time of their appointments, they were not already elected members of the Assembly.

The Guyana Court of Appeal had ruled that since their names were on the party list, but not among the 33 extracted to take up seats in the Assembly, they could not qualify as being non-voting members of the Assembly; as parliamentary secretaries.

Their Attorney argued that both Brown and Ramkissoon are deemed to be Member of the Assembly but not for voting purposes, neither do they enjoy the perks of being a Member of Parliament.

The Attorney submitted to the Court that the fact that they were both on the list meant that they fit the criteria to sit in the house, albeit as Parliamentary Secretaries.

He also submitted to the Court, that all members on the list of Candidates are ‘elected” members even before their names are extracted to sit in the National Assembly.

But Justice Winston Anderson said a proposition would go against constitutional provisions.

“It is a difficulty and it is difficult to reconcile with logic and difficult to reconcile with many provisions of the constitution,” Justice Anderson stated. 

Justice Andrew Burgess, put forward the argument that the Parliament Secretaries in this case may be akin to a Junior Minister, except that they do not have certain powers in the National Assembly, while Justice Jamadar advanced the position that the appointment of the two as Parliamentary Secretaries, although they do not have voting powe,r they have a voice, which would give the government some advantage.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is representing Christopher Jones, who had initially challenged the appointment of Brown and Ramkissoon described the submissions by Mr. Mendes as Bizzare and ridiculous, and noted that Article 232 prevents both Brown and Ramkisson from sitting in the House.

He argued that the ruling of the earlier Courts maintained a longstanding practice and also pointed out that if the CCJ reverses the decision then there could be some constitutional difficulties going forward.

But even so, the Judge Jamadar and CCJ President Adrian Saunders, were most interested to know which Article in the Constitution expressly disqualifies Brown and Ramkisson from sitting in the House as Parliamentary Secretaries. 

“What you are doing is to disqualify from Article (186) persons who are on a list but have not been extracted and I am trying to find the source of that disqualification. Which Article of the constitution disqualifies them from becoming Parliamentary Secretaries? They are disqualified from voting in the National Assembly and the constitution specifically says so, but which article disqualifies them from eligibility to becoming parliamentary secretary? The CCJ President quizzed Mr. Forde 

Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal had based their ruling on a previous ruling by former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang in the Morian case, where he had ruled that persons who were on the list of candidates but not extracted, were considered to be elected Members of the National Assembly.

Chief Justice George had found that in accordance with the Morian case, the appointments of Ramkissoon and Browne and their membership of the National Assembly were unlawful and she ordered the Speaker to prevent them from sitting in or participating in the business of the House. The Appeal Court had later affirmed her ruling.

Related posts:

Government to move to CCJ to appeal Parliamentary Secretaries’ case PPP Candidates cannot sit as Parliamentary Secretaries -Appeal Court affirms AG asks Appeal Court to stay removal of PPP Candidates as Parliamentary Secretaries Appointment of Brown and Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries and non-elected MPs illegal -CJ Rules