Commission to appeal court ruling in Royston King’s dismissal - LGC

Commission to appeal court ruling in Royston King’s dismissal – LGC

Sep 26, 2019 News

The Local Government Commission (LGC) is to appeal the recent court ruling which rendered the dismissal of former Town Clerk Royston King invalid.

Royston King

Mortimer Mingo

This is according to LGC Chairman Mortimer Mingo.
He confirmed to Kaieteur News that the Commission has discussed the matter and will be moving to the Courts to appeal the decision.
Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall had ruled that the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) which recommended that Royston King be sacked as Town Clerk is null, void and of no legal effect
In her ruling, the judge held that the LGC acted unlawfully in dismissing him from the post.
Following a CoI held from September 24 to November 30, 2018, headed by retired Judge Cecil Kennard, King was cited for gross misconduct, abuse of office, recklessness, dishonesty, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds. Among the recommendations made by the CoI was for him to be dismissed.
King was sent on administrative leave, and subsequently had his services terminated.
However, King’s lawyers successfully challenged the decision in the High Court.
Last month, Justice Morris-Ramlall held that the LGC had no authority under the law to delegate its investigatory powers to a CoI, which does not form part of the LGC or the local government body.
While the Judge said that the LGC is permitted under the relevant laws to delegate its investigatory powers, such powers have to be assigned to a body within the LGC. King’s lawyers had described Justice Kennard as a stranger since he is not a member of the Local government Organ, a staff or employee, as outlined in the Local Government Commission Act.
The Judge said that the LGC misconstrued itself when it formed the view that Sections 14 and 19 of the Local Government Commission Act and Article 79 of the Constitution of Guyana gave it the power to transfer its investigatory powers to an outside body. Section 14 of the Local Government Commission Act specifically deals with investigations by the commission.
Section 14 (1) states, “For the purpose of the exercise and discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall have the power to initiate and conduct investigations into the activities of any local government organ including the power regarding staff referred to in Section 13 (2).”
That Section adds, “The Commission shall deal with all matters relating to staffing of local government organs and in particular shall- (a) be responsible for employment, transfer, discipline and dismissal of staff; and (b) approve of remuneration, superannuation, training, leave and promotion of staff.”
According to Section 19 of the said Act, “The Commission may delegate, in written form, to any local government organ authority to perform duties and discharge function on its behalf as it may determine.”
Article 78 of the Constitution which deals with local government elections provides that, “Parliament may make provisions for the election of members of local democratic organs (including the commencement of balloting before the day appointed for holding an election) and for all other matters relating to their membership, powers, duties, functions and responsibilities.”
Justice Morris-Ramlall held, “The intention of the Local Government Commission Act is clear. The respondent [the LGC] is permitted to delegate its powers but only within the local government system.”
She noted that the LGC acted blindly upon the recommendations of the CoI when it instituted disciplinary charges against King and later terminating his services. The Judge said that there was no evidence to show that the LGC conducted any independent investigations.
Meanwhile King’s lawyers, Maxwell Edwards and Patrice Henry said that while the judge refused to grant an order reinstating him to the post, the judge’s rulings means that King remains Town Clerk with the status quo being of September 21, 2018 when he was ordered to proceed on administrative leave.
His lawyers said that King is still entitled to all the benefits that come with the post.
The Judge awarded costs to King in the sum of $200,000.