The Opposition is insisting that its no-confidence motion against Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi must be debated next week Friday and not next month, since opposition business takes precedence in Parliament every fourth Friday of the month.
Opposition MP Roodal Moonilal said this yesterday following signals from Government that the motion—which qualifies for debate after next Thursday—could end up being debated next month.
The motion, filed by Moonilal, calls for the Lower House to express loss of confidence in the Attorney General and to call on the Prime Minister to immediately relieve him of his portfolio.
The motion, which was filed last Friday, qualifies for debate any time after next Thursday (May 26). Opposition business such as this is handled every fourth Friday of the month which is Private Members’ Day.
Government has said the Lower House meets next Wednesday but government business will be done on that day. It has been noted that another Lower House session may not be held next Friday (May 27) or in May again after Wednesday’s sitting, since next Thursday is a holiday. After that, the next available opportunity for the motion to be debated may be on the next Private Members’ Day—June 24, the fourth Friday in June
But Moonilal said, “This is an opposition motion. The day for opposition business to be done in the Lower House is the fourth Friday of every month. And May 27 is the fourth Friday of this month so that is when this motion must be debated.
“The day for opposition business can only changed with consensus and we’re saying this has to be debated on the appropriate day—this month.”
The motion’s preamble states that the AG was aware of the $1.2 billion claim by Petrotrin in 2013 against Malcolm Jones for a breach of his fiduciary duty as executive chairman concerning the failed Gas To Liquid project; and that the AG gave instructions to Petrotrin attorneys to file a Notice of Discontinuance, thereby bringing the legal proceedings to an end prior to the commencement of the trial.
The Opposition said this effectively “ended any independent, impartial and judicial attempt to bring accountability and transparency to a matter involving $1.2 billion of taxpayers’ money lost.”
The motion stated the AG “has in relation to this matter proffered incomplete and unsound legal advice to the Parliament and the national community and has, as a consequence, conducted himself in a manner to compromise his office.”