Guyana’s Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act, which was passed in the National Assembly in December 2021 amid much controversy.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Navindra Singh would only say that the case filed by the Parliamentary Opposition challenging the validity of the Act was dismissed in its entirety with cost awarded to the respondents, including Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC.
Given that he had other matters to deal with, the Judge did not read out his 18-page judgement. He, however, provided the lawyers for each party with a copy of his written decision.
Nandlall, in speaking with reporters, said that such a ruling was expected given the frivolous and vexatious application mounted by the Opposition.
Meanwhile, Opposition lawyer Roysdale Forde, SC expressed disappointment with the ruling and signaled his intention of filing an appeal.
On the night of December 29, 2021, Opposition Members of Parliament dislodged the Mace from its position at the desk of the Clerk of the National Assembly, and protested in an attempt to prevent the Natural Resource Fund Bill from being passed.
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Witter had filed legal proceedings against the Government in April 2022, contending that due to the absence of the Parliamentary Mace – the most significant symbol in the National Assembly – and because some members of the National Assembly had not been seated, the NRF Act cannot be regarded as being lawfully passed.
In his Affidavit in Defence, Nandlall contended that the court action is an abuse of the court process, and is without any legal basis. As such, he has urged the court to dismiss the matter.
According to him, there is no principle known to the law – neither does either the Constitution or the Standing Orders of the National Assembly require – that the Mace must be present and in place for Parliament to exercise its constitutional power to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the country.
He argued that whether or not the Mace is in place, or whether an instrument can be used as a Mace, the purpose of the Mace and matters connected to Parliament are matters over which the High Court has no jurisdiction, as those matters constitute procedural matters of Parliament, over which the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution.
