The CCJ has spoken and its findings were clear to all. It ruled that the no-confidence vote of December 21 was valid, and the appointment of Justice Patterson as the Chairman of GECOM was in breach of the Constitution. What was not so clear was what the consequential orders would be that would follow from those rulings. These are scheduled to be made tomorrow, and the court has requested that both sides come to a consensus on the matters based on its findings. If agreement is not forthcoming, however, it would be prepared to intervene and issue orders. Justice Jacob Wit, a member of the CCJ panel, in reference to anticipated discussions between the parties, said that he was “hoping for a happy marriage between principle and practicality.”
Unfortunately, that kind of “happy marriage” has nearly always eluded our political camps, and given what has been said up to the time of writing, citizens will feel they have little cause for optimism that the situation will change before the submissions are made in court tomorrow.
There is, as well, the problem that President David Granger does not appear to be conceding the implications of the Court’s rulings. He certainly stated unequivocally that he would “accept, and abide by” the decisions, but then went on to say that Guyana could not hold fair, free and “credible” elections on the basis of the most recent voters’ list because it was “outdated and corrupted.” It was a democratic imperative, he said, that house-to-house registration be completed swiftly so that an election could be held at the earliest opportunity.
The President went on to advert to the fact that Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission James Patterson, had previously advised that the commission would be ready to hold elections in November 2019 after the completion of house-to-house registration. “I now await a recommendation for a specific date from GECOM and I will then issue a proclamation,” he told the nation.
This is all very strange. In the first place, constitutionally speaking, the government had three months during which to hold an election following the vote of no-confidence, and that interval elapsed during the course of the legal process. After such a vote, the Cabinet would normally resign and Parliament would be dissolved, barring any extension of its life agreed with the opposition that would require a two-thirds majority in the House of Assembly. However, Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo ruled that out. In the current ill-defined circumstances, if no accord is reached between the parties, Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran believes the CCJ will rule that Parliament should be dissolved and just by doing that, it would then be compulsory for an election to be held. “It [the Court] doesn’t have to rule anything else because once the Parliament is dissolved, everything else just flows,” he was quoted as saying last week.
As of last week too, Mr Jagdeo made it known that his party would not be amenable to any date beyond two to three months, so the President’s assumption that he will issue a proclamation, possibly in November, according to what GECOM tells him about its state of readiness is probably not grounded in reality. As suggested above, the election date will most likely be governed not by him but by the legal exigencies of the new situation, in compliance with whatever order the CCJ issues.
And then there is the problem with GECOM. When Mr Granger received the ‘advice’ from GECOM about house-to-house registration, Justice Patterson was the Chairman. And now Justice Patterson’s appointment has been ruled unconstitutional, so clearly a new Chairman would have to be in place. Last week, the Head of State let it be known that he thought the court should have explained how the law in relation to the chairmanship was breached, as he felt he had broken no laws. It will be recalled he had made a unilateral appointment after many months, as well as after having rejected three lists of six candidates submitted to him by Mr Jagdeo.
“I have never gone outside of the Constitution,” he was quoted as saying, “and if they felt that the process is flawed, they must let me know what the flaw is…There is no way that I can see that the decisions I have taken are flawed. It is the responsibility of the leader of the opposition to send me a list of six persons who are not objectionable.” As it is, the CCJ did explain how he breached the law, stating that he had no authority to introduce new eligibility requirements for the appointment, and that he should have given reasons for rejecting the 18 candidates.
In his second communication on the subject, the President did inform reporters that he would be writing Mr Jagdeo about resuming consultations on the matter of a new GECOM Chairman as the Constitution mandates. However, he did not shift his position on the question of the old list of electors and the fact that he could only issue a proclamation for elections on the advice of GECOM regarding its state of readiness. “It is my duty, it is not the duty of the leader of the opposition to decide when elections will be held,” he said, to all appearances still not accepting that the constitutional provisions which govern his actions in this regard now are not the same as those which applied before the vote of no-confidence.
And then there is the matter of what he had to say about the voters’ list itself. “It may hold as many as 200,000 incorrect entries,” he was quoted as saying. “What’s more, those who have reached the age of 18 years since the last election are not on it … [and] the Constitution entitles all citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote.” In the first place, the most recent voters’ list expired on April 30, and this was the one which was used without difficulty for the last local government elections. Secondly, his argument had already been refuted by several people, since, as was pointed out, that list included all persons who had attained the age of 18 as of October 31, 2018.
In addition to this, as we reported, there is provision under the law for persons 14 or older to be registered during any continuous registration process and to be added to the voters’ list upon reaching their majority. The last continuous registration period ended on July 18, 2018, meaning that anybody who is now 18 and has ever been registered will be on the current voters’ list.
Mr Ramkarran has directed attention to the fact that GECOM already has the power to remove the names of persons who have died, and these names are expected to be provided by the Registry of Births and Deaths. And where apprehensions about a bloated voters’ list are concerned, the former Speaker said that since 1992, systems to prevent unauthorised people from voting have been accepted by everyone, and there was little danger, therefore, that impersonation at polling stations would take place. “None of the fears expressed by political parties about elections since 1992 have a basis in reality or have materialised,” he said.
As has been advocated several times before, issues with the list could be addressed during the Claims and Objections period, so in short, the President is coming across as though he is tilting at windmills, always assuming he is not looking for ways to delay the elections.
In the meantime, Justice Patterson still has not stepped down from the position of GECOM Chairman, and it remains to be seen whether the President and Opposition Leader will be able to concur on how the situation could be rectified, as the Court had invited them to do. One thing which the electorate does not want is further procrastination in relation to that appointment. At this stage, the coalition has nothing to gain from more delays; it will only aggravate voters and cause unnecessary tension.
