Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo during a Parliamentary seating
The High Court dismissed a legal challenge filed by Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) Christopher Jones and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, who sought a declaration that Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s parliamentary seat be deemed vacant due to alleged prolonged absence from the National Assembly.
The case, which hinged on constitutional provisions and parliamentary standing orders, was dismissed on Wednesday by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan.
Attorney, Devindra Kissoon
The judge upheld arguments presented by Jagdeo’s legal team, led by attorneys Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieira, and Abhimanyu Dev of London House Chambers, that the matter was premature as the Speaker of the National Assembly had not yet determined whether the conditions for vacating a seat were met.
The Opposition MPs had argued that Jagdeo, absent for 11 consecutive sittings between December 11, 2023, and February 1, 2024, had violated Articles 54 and 156(1)(b) of the Constitution of Guyana, along with Standing Order 106(2).
Attorney, Natasha Vieira
These provisions state that an MP’s seat shall be vacated if they miss more than six consecutive sittings within two calendar months during a session of Parliament.
In their application, Jones and Sarabo-Halley contended that such absences undermine good governance and called on the court to make declarations regarding Jagdeo’s compliance with these legal requirements. They were represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.
However, on April 23 2024, Jagdeo filed a Notice of Application disputing the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and the determine the Fixed Date Application.
Attorney, Abhimanyu Dev
Justice Harnanan sided with Jagdeo’s argument that the matter must first be addressed by the Speaker of the National Assembly. He emphasised that under Article 156(1)(b) and Standing Order 106(2), the vacation of a seat is not automatic but subject to determination by the Speaker. The Court could only intervene if there was evidence of non-compliance with the standing orders, which had not been established.
Tabitha Sarabo-Halley
“The vacation of a seat under Article 156(l)(b) of the Constitution and Standing Order 106(2) is not automatic by operation of law as it is the Speaker’s responsibility to determine whether the threshold has been met. As the Speaker did not make such a decision, there can be no vacation, and thus the Fixed Date Application is premature,” Justice Harnanan stated.
Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall and Speaker Manzoor Nadir, represented by Satram and Satram Chambers, supported Jagdeo’s application to dismiss the case.
Christopher Jones
In dismissing the application, the judge ordered the Opposition MPs to pay $250,000 each to each respondent by December 31, 2024.
The decision is a significant affirmation of the procedural role of the Speaker in determining matters related to parliamentary seats and highlights the boundaries of judicial intervention in parliamentary affairs. The ruling also reinforces the necessity for political matters to first be resolved within established legislative processes.
The post High Court throws out Opposition’s bid to unseat VP Jagdeo in Parliament appeared first on Guyana Times.