CCJ declares valid Browne, Ramkissoon appointments as Parliamentary Secretaries

Oct 31, 2024
news
846

THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has overturned decisions by Guyana’s High Court and Court of Appeal, thereby validating the appointments of Sarah Browne and Vikash Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries.

The unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday addressed key constitutional ambiguities surrounding the designation and authority of “elected members” in Guyana’s National Assembly, bringing closure to a legal dispute with substantial political implications.

Browne served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs, while Ramkissoon supported the Minister of Agriculture.

Their appointments were made by President, Dr Irfaan Ali in September 2020 under Article 186 of the Constitution of Guyana. While both were on the People’s Progressive Party/Civic PPP/C’s candidates list in the 2020 elections, they were not among the 33 candidates officially “extracted” to fill seats in the National Assembly.

The appointments were challenged in December 2020 by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones, who argued that only extracted members could legally serve as Parliamentary Secretaries.

Jones sought a court order to prevent Browne and Ramkissoon from participating in parliamentary proceedings, asserting that their appointments breached constitutional norms.

The High Court had ruled in Jones’s favour, citing precedents from previous cases (Attorney General of Guyana v. Morian and Trotman v. Attorney General) to support its interpretation of “elected member.”

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on procedural grounds, referencing the High Court’s previous rulings without addressing the underlying constitutional questions.

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, along with Browne and Ramkissoon, appealed to the CCJ, listing Jones and the Speaker of the National Assembly as respondents.

THE CCJ’S RULING

The CCJ addressed two core issues: the Court of Appeal’s obligation to follow prior case law and the constitutional validity of the President’s appointments.

Highlighting the principle of stare decisis (precedent), the CCJ noted that procedural dismissals do not inherently establish binding legal s on substantive issues, urging caution in following precedents set without thorough examination.

The CCJ then examined Article 186 and related constitutional provisions to clarify the term “elected member.”

The court found that the Morian ruling had created an untenable distinction by recognising two classes of “elected members”—those extracted to serve in the Assembly and those unextracted but still on the candidates list.

The CCJ rejected this interpretation, ruling that only extracted candidates are fully “elected members” eligible for parliamentary functions, while unextracted members may be appointed to support, but cannot vote in the National Assembly.

“One class comprised real, elected members whose names were extracted and who therefore could take the oath and sit and vote in the National Assembly and be appointed Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. The other class constituted ‘elected members’ whose names were not extracted and who could not take the oath, had no seat in the Assembly and could not be appointed a Parliamentary Secretary,” the CCJ said.

According to the CCJ, Morian’s interpretation of the term ‘elected member’ when applied to certain provisions of the Constitution produced untenable consequences. As such, it therefore held that an elected member of the National Assembly is a member whose name is extracted from a successful list.

The regional court said that this interpretation allowed for a coherent and consistent application of the term throughout the Constitution. Additionally, it added that this interpretation also aligns with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

“Unextracted members are not, while they remain unextracted, elected members of Parliament. They are merely eligible for extraction and, if they are not extracted as a result of a vacancy arising, and provided they remain qualified to sit in the Assembly (in keeping with arts 53 and 155), they too, like any other citizen, are eligible to be appointed among the four Ministers and two Parliamentary Secretaries who may be earmarked for office by the President, in keeping with the conjoint effect of arts 103(3), 105 and 186. In that case, they would be entitled to sit in Parliament but, because they are unelected, they would have no right to vote in the Assembly,” the court ruled.

Therefore, the CCJ said that it agreed with counsel for the appellants that Browne and Ramkissoon were presumptively qualified to be elected as members of the National Assembly since, as candidates on the PPP/C’s list, they were each required to swear that they were qualified to be so elected, and the respondent adduced no evidence that they were not qualified to be elected.

EFFECT OF RULING

The CCJ’s decision clarifies the qualifications for parliamentary appointments in Guyana, effectively resolving constitutional ambiguities that have challenged the interpretation of membership eligibility in the National Assembly.

By overturning the lower courts’ rulings, the CCJ has restored Browne and Ramkissoon’s roles, confirming their lawful participation as Parliamentary Secretaries.

Recognising the matter’s public significance, the CCJ ordered each party to bear its own costs, emphasising the value of addressing a constitutional question with substantial public interest.

The case was presided over by CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders, alongside Justices Winston Anderson, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Andrew Burgess, and Peter Jamadar.

The appellants were represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, while Jones’s legal team included Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and other attorneys.

https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/10/31/ccj-declares-valid-browne-ramkissoon-appointments-as-parliamentary-secretaries/