A proposed adjournment motion signed by MPs Dawn Hastings-Williams and Natasha Singh seeks lawful arrangements to allow detained Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed to discharge his constitutional and parliamentary responsibilities.
The five-page motion, dated November 10, calls on the National Assembly to affirm that pending criminal charges or pre-trial detention do not automatically terminate an elected member’s parliamentary membership or the constitutional office of Leader of the Opposition.
Hastings-Williams is named as the mover and Singh as the seconder. The two We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) MPs had the motion submitted Speaker Manzoor Nadir yesterday. The National Assembly is scheduled to have a sitting today.
Entitled “Adjournment Motion on the Protection of Parliamentary Representation, the Constitutional Functions of the Leader of the Opposition and the Preservation of Democratic Accountability”, the proposal addresses the implications of Mohamed’s detention for parliamentary representation and oversight.
It calls on the relevant authorities to examine and facilitate arrangements, consistent with judicial orders and applicable legislation, enabling him to perform his duties “to the fullest extent legally permissible”.
The motion also seeks recognition of the importance of allowing detained MPs to communicate with the Speaker, the Clerk of the National Assembly, parliamentary colleagues and constituents, and to participate in proceedings where permitted by law and court orders.
It argues that circumstances preventing the Opposition Leader from participating in Parliament and exercising his constitutional responsibilities raise broader concerns about the effective representation of citizens who elected opposition members.
The document notes that Mohamed has been remanded on a pending charge under the Cybercrime Act, while separate extradition proceedings and other allegations remain before the courts. It stresses that he has not been convicted of an offence and argues that pending proceedings must not themselves be treated as a determination of guilt or termination of his constitutional office.
One proposed resolution asks the Assembly to affirm that criminal allegations, pending charges or pre-trial detention do not, without the application of the relevant constitutional provisions and lawful procedures, automatically end an MP’s membership or the Opposition Leader’s tenure.
The motion cites Article 184 in arguing that the election, tenure and removal of the Opposition Leader must be governed strictly by the Constitution. It also refers to Articles 156 and 163 concerning parliamentary membership and the High Court’s jurisdiction to determine specified questions relating to that membership.
It further seeks an affirmation that the Opposition Leader’s constitutional responsibilities under Articles 127 and 161 must not be circumvented, disregarded or transferred to another person unless expressly authorised by the Constitution or applicable law. Those provisions concern appointments to the senior judiciary and the Elections Commission.
At the same time, the motion expressly recognises that protecting parliamentary representation does not confer immunity from lawful investigation, prosecution or judicial proceedings.
Nor, it states, does such protection authorise Parliament to interfere with judicial independence or the lawful administration of justice.
The proposal maintains that the state’s right to investigate and prosecute alleged offences must coexist with due process, equality before the law, proportionality and fundamental rights. It calls for criminal justice to be administered independently and without political interference, irrespective of an accused person’s political office, status or affiliation.
It also addresses detention conditions, seeking recognition that pre-trial detention must remain subject to judicial oversight and that all detainees must be treated consistently with the Constitution, applicable laws and recognised standards of humane treatment.
The motion concludes by asking the Assembly to reaffirm that the exercise of lawful judicial authority must not result in the arbitrary frustration of the constitutional representation entrusted by the electorate.
Mohamed has been on remand at the Lusignan Prison since Magistrate Abigail Gibbs refused him bail on October 30 in a cybercrime case concerning the alleged unauthorised obtaining and disclosure of police surveillance footage of the October 12 shooting involving Special Branch Head, Senior Superintendent Prem Narine. Mohamed has pleaded not guilty and is challenging the refusal of bail in the High Court. A preliminary ruling is scheduled for November 13, while the substantive hearing is fixed for November 23.
Discussion