Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones testified on Wednesday that Opposition Member of Parliament Khemraj Ramjattan was slated to debate the Natural Resource Fund Bill in December 2021 but was never called upon by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, to speak.

Jones was on the stand in the case that he has filed against the passage of the Natural Resource Fund Bill.

But Attorney General Anil Nandlall in attempting to poke holes in Jones’ statements grilled him on whether the speaking list submitted as evidence in the case was the actual list submitted to the Speaker.

As he took the stand on Wednesday before High Court Judge Navindra Singh, Mr Jones recalled that ahead of the December 29, 2021 Sitting of the National Assembly, he and the Government’s Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira had agreed to the list of Members of Parliament to debate the Natural Resource Fund Bill. According to him, both him and Ms Teixeira placed their signatures on three copies of the list, and had submitted one of the signed lists to the Speaker.

Responding to a series of questions posed by his Attorney, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, the Opposition Chief Whip told the Court that among the speakers scheduled to speak for the Opposition were MP Khemraj Ramjattan and MP Juretha Fernandes. 

It was said that while the Opposition MPs fiercely objected to a decision by the Speaker to proceed with the Bill amid protest action, and even in the absence of the Mace, MP Ramjattan had remained in his seat. It was noted that only the Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh had “debated” the Bill.

But the Attorney General, the first named respondent in the case, grilled Mr Jones on whether the list submitted as evidence in the case was one of the three copies, he and the Government’s Chief Whip had signed.

The Attorney General was keen on pointing out that the list presented in Court bore none of the signatures to which Mr Jones had earlier referred to. In his defence, the Opposition Chief Whip said while the list had no signatures, it contained the exact names which were submitted to the Speaker.

Speaking to reporters outside of the courtroom, the Attorney General said that Mr Jones, during the cross-examination, confirmed several important points.

“He confirmed that the Speaker is in charge of the National Assembly under the Standing Orders; he confirmed that the Speaker is responsible for maintaining order in the Assembly; he confirmed that the Speaker’s ruling must be obeyed by Members of Parliament. He then agreed with me that the Speaker rejected his application for the Bill to be taken to the Select Committee. He agreed that in spite of the Speaker’s ruling that the bill will be debated, he proceeded to stand in his seat for several minutes debating the speaker’s ruling,” the Attorney General pointed out.

The Opposition Chief Whip had also agreed that the all of the Opposition MPs, with the exception of MP Ramjattan, had defied the orders of the Speaker and proceeded to the Rotunda, where they protested the decision to proceed with the Bill.

He had also confirmed that the Mace was forcefully removed during what could be described as a very chaotic sitting of the National Assembly.

The Attorney General said while Mr Jones claimed to have submitted an authentic list of speakers to the Court as evidence, that was not found to be the case.

“I then showed him a list of speakers that he tendered into evidence which list he said was the agreed list by him and Gail Teixeira and I showed him a copy of the list, he tendered in evidence and I asked him to point out first of all his signature and the signature of Gail Teixeira on that document. He couldn’t because the document has no signature. So, he had to agree with me that was not the list he submitted,” he explained.

But Mr Forde assured reporters that the list bearing the signatures as described by the Opposition Chief Whip will surface as the case continues. He maintained that the list presented to the Court was accurate.

“What Mr Jones presented to the Court as part of his case is the identical list which was used and submitted to the Speaker,” the Senior Counsel said.

He said it was important to bring attention to the speaking list. “We relied on the speaking list to establish that the Speaker was aware at all material time who were the person to speak, and it is our position that Mr Ramjattan was in his seat at the material time at the conclusion of the debate by Ashni Singh. So, you would recall somewhere between there, Gail Teixeira stood and moved a motion to terminate the debate and close the debate while Mr Ramjattan was in his seat. And it is our case that the Speaker ought to have called on Mr Ramjattan to stand up and speak,” the Senior Counsel explained.

 The opposition is challenging the legality of the Natural Resource Fund Act. The case will come up again on December 9.

Related posts:

High Court dismisses Opposition’s challenge to passage of NRF Bill Opposition Chief Whip calls out Speaker again over “biased” treatment of Opposition MPs during Budget debate; Speaker responds Opposition Chief Whip swipes at Government for not engaging Opposition and at Parliament for infrequent sittings Opposition Chief Whip and Trade Unionist file Court action over passage of NRF