What the Chief Justice actually said


Three differing interpretations of the Chief Justice’s ruling in the case of the Attorney General v David Granger and Raphael Trotman have been given. Attorney-at-law Basil Williams of APNU said that the Chief Justice upheld the decision of the Speaker by allowing Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee to speak as a member of the National Assembly but not as Minister of Home Affairs. The Attorney General said that the “gag” order made against Minister Rohee by the Speaker had been removed. The Speaker said that he is appealing the decision because he requires clarification, but that in any event he was not bound by the Chief Justice’s ruling.

All of these distinguished gentlemen cannot be right. So what really did the Chief Justice say?
Before answering the question some background is necessary.

On July 30, 2012, the National Assembly passed a resolution, No 18 of 2012, expressing no confidence in the Minister of Home Affairs and calling for his dismissal. Following upon this resolution the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion on November 22, 2012, which proposed that Minister Rohee “…be prevented from speaking in the National Assembly so long as he is purporting to carry out the functions of Minister of Home Affairs as published in the Official Gazette.”

20130120columnThe effect of what Mr Granger was asking was that Minister Rohee should not speak at all as long as he holds the position of Home Affairs Minister.
The Speaker ruled that (a) the motion be sent to the Committee of Privileges and (b) Minister Rohee “be prohibited from speaking or, not recognizing Minister of Home Affairs, Clement James Rohee MP for the purpose of presenting any bills, motions or making other presentations to the House.”
The Speaker later explained his ruling to mean that Minister Rohee cannot speak or present bills or motions in his capacity as Minister of Home Affairs but he can speak in his capacity as a member.

The Attorney General brought the case to declare the Speaker’s ruling unlawful and unconstitutional and to order that it be set aside.
The Chief Justice dealt with several issues which are not all necessary to be examined because they do not all relate to the issue of Minister Rohee’s right to speak. It is only this portion of the Chief Justice’s ruling which we are seeking to clarify.

The Chief Justice made two important conclusions, namely, that Minister Rohee’s right to speak in the National Assembly derives from his membership of that body and not from his position as Minister of Home Affairs and that, therefore, it is irrelevant for the purpose of the case that Mr Rohee holds the portfolio of Minister of Home Affairs. He said:

“If Mr Rohee’s name was on a successful list of candidates and his name was extracted from that list of candidates to hold a seat in the National Assembly on behalf of all members of that list but he was not assigned a ministerial portfolio, his right or privilege to speak in the National Assembly would not have diminished one iota by his non-tenure of a ministerial portfolio. Therefore, the prohibition must necessarily relate to Mr. Rohee only as a member of the National Assembly and not as Minister of Home Affairs… It is therefore irrelevant for the purpose of this case that Mr Rohee holds the portfolio of Minister of Home Affairs.”

Two shorter passages confirm the view of the Chief Justice which is outlined above. In the latter the Chief Justice said: “The legal truth is that Mr Rohee can speak in the National Assembly only as a member of the National Assembly and not as Minister of Home Affairs.”

Having concluded with clarity that Minister Rohee does not have separate rights of speaking as a member and as a Minister, but a single right as a member, the Chief Justice then proceeds to pronounce on the right. He said:

“It is indeed difficult to see how, in the face of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Speaker can prohibit a member (particularly an elected member) from speaking or making a presentation in that Assembly on account of the absence of confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly in that person qua an executive Minister when he sits in the Assembly not qua Minister of the Government but qua member of the National Assembly.”

Several other passages confirm this position.

The Speaker expressed the view that the Chief Justice’s ruling is not binding on the Parliament. While it is true that the Chief Justice that: “It is no part of the court’s function to give directions to the Speaker of the National Assembly as to the future conduct of the Assembly’s affairs,” emphasizing that the Chief Justice was talking about “future conduct,” he also said: “In such an exceptional state of affairs in the National Assembly, the need for the court to intervene in the processes of the National Assembly does appear to arise in protection of his constitutional right as an elected member of the National Assembly.”

While the Chief Justice was of the view that Mr Rohee’s right to represent his electors in the National Assembly is not constitutionally enforceable, he clearly stated that “it behoves the Speaker and indeed the National Assembly as a whole to respect not only the finding of the court for reason of its finality but also the constitutional right to be represented by him in the National Assembly.”

Many peculiar situations are arising since the last general elections. Conventions are ignored. New ones are announced which never existed anywhere in Guyana or the world at large. Roles are reversed. Now, suddenly, the Parliament/Speaker is not bound by court orders.

Who would be able to complain if the executive takes the same position? (www.conversationtree.gy).

Latest in Features, Sunday

LUCAS STOCK INDEXThe Lucas Stock Index (LSI) rose 0.54 per cent during the third period of trading in June 2016. The stocks of six companies were traded with 79,573 shares changing hands. There were three Climbers and one Tumbler. The stocks of Banks DIH (DIH) rose 1.98 per cent on the sale of 18,757 while the stocks of Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL) rose 5.26 per cent on the sale of 41,667 shares. In addition, the stocks of Demerara Tobacco Company (DTC) rose 1.51 per cent on the sale of 13,603 shares. In contrast, the stocks of Demerara Bank Limited (DBL) fell 5.26 per cent on the sale of 4,324 shares.  In the meanwhile, the stocks of Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (BTI) and Republic Bank Limited (RBL) remained unchanged on the sale of 222 and 1,000 shares respectively.

Massy and Guyana (Part 1)

Steadfast Last year, this writer looked at the Massy Group of Companies formerly Neal and Massy to gain an understanding of the operations of this company which has been doing business in Guyana for the past 48 years. 


Value-added performance of the forest sub-sector: Erratic, weak, declining

Erratic Last week’s column highlighted what I consider to be a most distinctive feature of the extractive forest sub-sector’s performance in Guyana’s economy, during the past decade.

default placeholder

The UK bids Europe farewell

On June 23 by a small majority, the British people voted to remove themselves from the European Union (EU). The decision has consequences for the Caribbean.

default placeholder

What would life be without sport?

I wonder what it would be like to exclude sport completely from one’s life for, say, one year? No playing sport, no watching it, no reading it no discussing it no thinking about it even.

default placeholder

Brexit: Lessons for Caricom

The results of the referendum held in Britain to determine whether or not it should remain in or leave the European Union (EU), has been won by voters who supported the leave option.

Director of Sport Christopher Jones and President of the Guyana Chess Federation Irshad Mohammed (centre) stand with some members of the 2016 Guyana Olympiad chess team. The team travels to Baku, Azerbaijan, for participation at the Olympiad in September. A signature qualifying tournament was not held to determine the members of Guyana’s Olympiad chess team.

Federation picks chess Olympiad team without holding qualifier

The Guyana Chess Federation (GCF) has decided upon a 2016 Guyana Olympiad chess team without hosting a qualification competition to determine the competence of its participants.

Quamina Farrier

Heavy on historic significance, Journey to Freedom failed as a musical

Several Guyanese plays of historic significance were recently staged at the Theatre Guild and National Cultural Centre as part of a Jubilee festival.

Pawpaw Fruit Soup with Passion Fruit Photo by Cynthia Nelson

Fruit soup

If you’re looking for an easy dessert that uses mostly fruit, then you’ve hit the jackpot when you make a fruit soup.


About these comments

The comments section is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity.

Stay updated! Follow Stabroek News on Facebook or Twitter.

Get the day's headlines from SN in your inbox every morning: