THE House of Representatives passed the Municipal Corporations (Extension of Terms of Office and Validation) Bill 2023 on Monday. The bill will now be debated in the Senate on Wednesday.

Before the bill was passed, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, rejected suggestions from Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein, during the committee stage of the House, to amend the bill by removing clause five.

This clause validated the actions of councillors and aldermen between December 2,2022 and May 18 and up to the period when the bill becomes an act of Parliament.

Persad-Bissessar and Hosein reiterated their earlier arguments that this clause validated the actions of aldermen and councillors after their term of office expired on May 18.

This was the date when the Privy Council ruled that the decision to extend the life of local government bodies by one year, starting December 2, 2022, was unlawful."

In their respective contributions to the debate, Persad-Bissessar and Hosein said the actions of councillors and aldermen could not be validated after their term of office had expired.

They reiterated their claim that clause five of the bill allowed for future actions by councillors and aldermen to be validated.

In response to their call for this clause to be removed, Armour said, "I decline to accept the suggestion for the amendment in its entirety."

Armour reminded Persad-Bissessar and Hosein that when he concluded the debate on the bill, he indicated that it "is not speaking into the future."

The bill was designed to validate the two periods mentioned in clause five.

Armour proposed his own amendment to clause five.

He told MPs all this amendment did was "to give legislative efficacy to the De Facto Officers Doctrine up to when this bill becomes an act of parliament."

The House approved this amendment.

On May 23 in the Senate, Armour said this doctrine allows for duly elected officers to remain in office until an election is held.

Earlier in the sitting, Armour criticised the Opposition for attempting to misrepresent that the Privy Council ruled that Government breached the Constitution by extending the life of local government bodies by one year.

"In no terms did the Privy Council say that what this government has done, amounts to a breach of the Constitution. Quite the contrary."

He said the UNC gains nothing by misrepresenting judgments made in any court of law.

"It wins no friends. It wins no respect."

Armour said Persad-Bissessar was wrong to claim that the judgment implied that councillors and aldermen were not acting lawfully during the extension.

He added that anyone listening to Persad-Bissessar "might have been tempted to believe that point of interpretation was a point which formed the centre of the arguments of those who represented the (UNC) political activist (Ravi Balgobin-Maharaj) when he went before the High Court, the Court of Appeal."

Referring to the Privy Council judgment, Armour said Balgobin-Maharaj never argued that