Dear Editor,
CARICOM law making reached an important plateau on June 18, 2019 when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) handed down its rulings on the Guyana No-Confidence motion of December 21, 2018 and on issues related to it. These rulings will go down as a landmark in our legal history. The countries in our region have been largely influenced by the British Constitutional traditions in which parliaments rarely, if ever, refer their disputes to the courts, although the House of Lords, the Upper House of the UK Parliament, is itself a court of final jurisdiction for some cases. In the Caribbean, there are written constitutions and the courts also have the functions of judicial review. While it is clear that the courts have the power and function of reviewing and evaluating, except when barred, executive acts and laws passed by parliaments, it is not so clear that they will automatically accept jurisdictions over the purely internal business of parliament. It is instructive to the public, therefore, that the court readily accepted jurisdiction, with little comment over the Guyana issues. Lawyers may wish to compile from the Law Reports of the region a readable record of cases in which the courts have adjudicated in parliamentary decisions.
As an observer, I am of the opinion that in the series of hearings on the No-Confidence motion case, the three levels of courts, although disagreeing, have all added to the growth of CARICOM’s jurisprudence. In particular, in the exercise of its functions, the CCJ incidentally set an example of how constitutional powers and authority might be exercised. In ruling that the No-Confidence motion was valid, the court did not immediately make orders for the solution of the difficulties revealed. It decided to give the parties, through their counsel, five clear calendar days to agree, or attempt to agree, on recommendations for the healings of the injuries done to the constitution and a return to normalcy. These issues will include the chairing of the Elections Com-mission and the most conflicted issue of the General Elections consequent on the CCJ’s upholding of the No-Confidence motion. Only in the absence of agreement between the parties concerned will the CCJ fill the void on its own initiative. Our citizens may wish that their elected representatives on either side cultivate some of the culture that informs this ruling.
The first indications from the Government and the Opposition in Guyana, after the CCJ’s ruling, suggest that they need to have a serious conversation in the interest of the population. The Opposition has called for elections within three months, that is, about mid-September. On the other hand, the Government has said that valid elections cannot be held before November. This shows a gap of about two months in their respective expectations. One Justice on the CCJ panel had spoken of “a happy marriage between principle and practicality”. It is almost six months since the No-Confidence motion was passed. Another two months after the three demanded by the Opposition, if the delay will avoid the episodes after the 2001 General Elections, may not be fatal to the general good.
The Opposition at present is presenting itself as the champion of early elections and democracy and it is entitled to do so in its role as a parliamentary party pledged to uphold the Constitution. That party has to admit, however, the historical fact that in 2015 when the present Government in opposition tabled a no-confidence vote against it, the PPP Government of the day brazenly disrespected a standard parliamentary convention and refused to have the motion debated. Instead, without explanation, it suspended or prorogued the National Assembly, thus depriving its parliamentary partner of the use of a standard facility, that is, a debate on its no-confidence motion. As the country waited for the motion to be debated, the PPP used a convenient provision of the Constitution to dissolve Parliament and call a new election. Members of Parliament take an oath to uphold the Constitution and this can only mean even when it favours the other side. I have referred elsewhere to a time in 1961 when a PPP Government refused for an entire term to hold a by-election to fill a vacancy caused when the High Court unseated one of its members in an election petition. These are not arguments against the findings of the CCJ, but an attempt to bring before the public matters that could not be relevant during the recent hearings. At this stage, these are political arguments touching on our political culture.
Strangely, the Government’s recent description of the readiness of the Elections Commission, with alleged thousands of invalid names on the electoral lists, reminds us of the Hon. Mr. Rohee’s explanation of the failure of the PPP to hold the Houston by-election.
The best option at present will be agreement between Government and Opposition on the timing of the due elections, so that the episodes following the 2001 General Elections are not replayed. These incidents had taken the Guyanese population into a time of danger and insecurity worse than the 1960s.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
