The Constitution (Amendment) Bill will now find its way back to the Lower House after the Independent Liberal Party (ILP) failed in its appeal over the constitutional motion it filed to challenge the passing of the bill in August. Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said yesterday while the debate on the bill in the House of Representatives did not depend on court proceedings, the Government had decided to “hold its hand.”
In a press conference yesterday Ramlogan announced that judges in the Court of Appeal had rejected the ILP’s appeal and ordered the party to pay the legal fees incurred by the State. In a press release yesterday, the ILP said it would appeal the decision to the Privy Council. The party must file the appeal within 21 days. Asked about the possibility of a further appeal yesterday, Ramlogan said he felt confident no court would sanction what he described as an impermissible and illegitimate transgression on the constitutional jurisdiction of the Parliament.
He said nothing had stopped the bill from going forward but out of respect for the claim filed in the High Court, the Government had held its hand. “We have allowed this matter to germinate in the public,” Ramlogan said, adding he felt the public had accepted and understood the bill. Ramlogan said it would now come up for debate in Parliament as the Government had fully supported the amendments made in the Senate. “It’s a formality that it would come up in the Lower House in due course so that it could be debated and passed.”
Ramlogan called the ILP’s action premature and prejudicial and criticised the party for challenging the bill before it had even been passed. Ramlogan, who appeared for the State with attorney Zelica Haynes Soo-Hoon, said while for an Attorney General to represent the State in a legal challenge was unusual, it was not unprecedented. He felt it was important to appear in his own right as it involved a very serious interplay between the legislative arm of the State and the Judiciary. He added: “I felt it was a matter that touched and concerned the very architecture and structure of our Constitution, that could be violated and structured in a way that would be difficult to repair if this case were to proceed in a manner where one was to proceed with the invitation to the Judiciary, via this motion, for it to comment and make declarations on a matter that is still before the Parliament.”