Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall on Tuesday contended that the proposed amendments to the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act made by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) are not eligible for parliamentary consideration.

APNU’s lead Member of Parliament (MP) Terrence Campbell recently submitted the proposal which seeks to repeal and substitute Section 16 of the NRF Act.

But Nandlall pointed out that this matter is currently engaging the attention of the courts, and based on established procedures, cannot be simultaneously addressed at the level of the Parliament.

“The National Assembly cannot proceed to debate or deal with a matter if that matter is sub judice…meaning that it is pending in the court system of our country,” the Attorney General explained during his programme “Issues in the News”, noting that “that rule is one that is grounded in the separation of powers doctrine”.

Nandlall explained that Parliament is an independent arm of government, as is the judiciary and the executive, and that they have exclusive functions.

“…in some cases, the executive and parliament intersect in their functional responsibilities but the judiciary is always independent of and separate from these two other branches…The standing orders are also structured to recognise and respect that doctrine,” he outlined.

“So once there is a matter that is occupying the court, parliament as a matter of the standing orders, prohibits the consideration of that matter by the National Assembly,” Nandlall said.

The Standing Order in question is Number 41 (2), which states: “Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice, in such a way as might, in the opinion of the Chair, prejudice the interest of parties thereto.”

In February 2024, Campbell had filed legal proceedings against the Attorney General challenging the constitutionality of the very Section 16 of the NRF Act.

Highlighting that Campbell’s proposed amendments seek the very remedies that he is pursuing in the court, Nandlall contended that “I don’t know if Terrence Campbell is not seeking legal advice or if those who are advising him are ill-advising him, but these are established…principles of law and of parliamentary practice that at least one should familiarise him/herself with when you go into Parliament.”

Meanwhile, Nandlall contended that the amendments which Campbell is seeking are inconsequential.

The existing section of the NRF Act reads: “All withdrawals from the Fund shall be deposited into the Consolidated Fund and shall be used only to finance – (a) national development priorities including an initiative aimed at realising an inclusive green economy; (b) essential projects that are directly related to ameliorating the effect of a major natural disaster.”

On the hand other, Campbell is proposing that it be changed to state: “The revenues from the Fund shall be used only to finance— (a) infrastructure and development projects of the Government, including any initiative aimed at realizing an inclusive green economy; and (b) essential projects that are directly related to ameliorating the effects of a major natural disaster.”

“It is largely the same thing,” Nandlall contended.

“You may not like the language in which it is expressed and you want to change the language, [but] you need to win an election and win the government, you can’t do so with 12 seats in the National Assembly,” he added.