…Roysdale Forde says Walrond’s court drama could have been avoided
By Lisa Hamilton
Attorney-at-Law, Roysdale Forde said on Thursday that Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall; Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, Oneidge Walrond and Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir have subject themselves and the country to unnecessary embarrassment by failing to accept, from the inception, that Walrond was wrongfully appointed.
He told the media that, as a result, the current Administration will continue to face the consequences of their actions as the Chief Justice’s (CJs) decision has raised a number of questions such as whether the previous decisions taken by Walrond are valid and whether the AG will comply with Article 58 of the Constitution to take civil action against Walrond in the High Court.
On Thursday, December 10, 2020, the CJ handed down her ruling upholding that Waldron was not a lawful member of the National Assembly and that her initial appointment as Minister on August 5, 2020 by President Irfaan Ali was also in breach of the Constitution, given her foreign status.
However, days before the Court’s ruling, on December 1, Walrond was secretly sworn-in again as Minister, suggesting that the Administration silently acknowledged it was in the wrong. However, no photograph has surfaced confirming that Walrond did indeed take the oath of office for the second time.
“We had tried our best to avoid going to Court, this matter could have been resolved within the confines of the parliamentary process and systems but we were rebuked many times by the Attorney General and even Ms. Walrond herself who declared that she would stoutly defend her name and her representation in the House,” Forde told the media on Thursday.
“I believe it is quite unfortunate that Ms. Walrond would have gotten herself involved in such a fiasco. I know her well, virtually my entire life. We started High School together on the same day at St. Roses High School in 1985. So, this is quite unlike her to be associated with this sort of fiasco but, nevertheless, it is quite an embarrassing situation. It is also quite an embarrassment to the Speaker of the National Assembly who declared that he was satisfied with what he was told by Ms. Walrond that she was lawfully elected and capable and eligible to be a lawful member of the National Assembly.”
Forde said that he could see the “discomfort” in Nandlall’s disposition during the Court case as he was “forced to concede” that the case filed by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones has merit. Moving forward, he said that while he hopes that the members of the Government will align themselves in keeping with the law he is not very optimistic as their next step following wrongful appointment of Walrond was her secret re-appointment.
Speaking to the December 1, alleged second oath of office, the Attorney said: “It is equally clandestine, as the very first appointment would have been. No one knew that Ms. Oneidge Walrond was sworn in and we have not seen any record to support her actually taking the oath. Mr. Nandlall, the Attorney General, sought to evade answering the question by the Chief Justice as to whether Ms. Oneidge Walrond in fact took an oath. I can’t recall him clearly answering the question.”
However, also deemed important by Forde are the matters which are to follow. He said that questions are now being raised about the legality of documents signed by Walrond while illegitimately a minister and the instruction of Article 58 of the Constitution which states:
“(1) Any person who sits or votes in the National Assembly, knowing or having reasonable ground for knowing that he is not entitled to do so, shall be liable to a penalty of fifty dollars for each day upon which he so sits or votes. (2) Any such penalty shall be recoverable by civil action in the High Court at the suit of the Attorney General.”
Forde said that the proceedings with the CJ did not raise or clarify these issues but he expects that discussions will ensue and litigation will be the remedy for any disagreements with the rightful interpretation of the law.
