At some point it must dawn on the APNU+AFC government that the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on June 18 upholding the December 21, 2018 motion of no confidence means that it has been occupying office since March 21 without a mandate. Its legitimacy is therefore tenuous but underpinned by the doctrine of necessity as some type of government must be in place. While the government has resisted the view that it must now function as a caretaker government for the purpose of arranging general elections, it may have heard the CCJ’s Justice Wit on June 24 make that exact point emphatically. He reiterated on several occasions during the hearing on the consequential orders to be issued on July 12 that any government that is collapsed by a motion of no confidence becomes a caretaker-type administration and is therefore constrained to act in such a manner. While it is not yet a finding of the court, Justice Wit’s admonition is a likely indicator of the direction that the CCJ is headed.
This is why the disclosure that the government is beginning preparations for a 2020 budget smacks of arrogance and disrespect for the tenor of the CCJ ruling of June 18. As much as early budget preparations are crucial to the smooth running of the country and its financial affairs, there is no pressing emergency for the government – except to begin preparations for elections – and any move to proceed with the budget presentation will call into question the integrity of the government and its motivations. The statement on the budget was as befuddling as the declaration by the GECOM counsel, Stanley Marcus, before the CCJ on June 24 that December 25 was the point at which a voters list would be ready. Perhaps counsel is an aficionado of the festivities of December 25 and that was how that date was uttered.
As the constitution is the fulcrum upon which the rule of law is founded, this newspaper’s positions on the appointment of the GECOM Chairman and the viability of the motion of no confidence have been guided by the very clear articles it contains.
From the outset the newspaper was of the view that the High Court had erred when it upheld President Granger’s unilateral imposition of Justice Patterson as Chairman. This failing was perpetuated by the Guyana Court of Appeal and both courts had their rulings understandably overturned by the CCJ on June 18. A constructive reading of the constitution makes it clear that consensual decision-making was required. President Granger exceeded his powers by appointing Justice Patterson when he unreasonably discarded three separate lists with a total of 18 names forwarded by the Opposition Leader and abruptly terminated dialogue.
The stark result of the June 18 ruling by the CCJ was that Justice Patterson’s appointment was nullified and he needed not even to tarry on the question of whether he should resign. The task now is to decide on a new Chairman. It is evident that the government has not given up on its penchant to play fast and loose with the constitution. It is now suggesting that President Granger based on the June 18 ruling of the CCJ can nominate some of the persons who would eventually be on the list of six to be submitted by the Opposition Leader. The section of the CCJ ruling cited is as follows: “The court decided that the most sensible approach to operationalising the Article was for the Leader of the Opposition and the President to communicate with each other in good faith and perhaps even meet to discuss eligible candidates for the position of Chairman before a list is formally submitted. The aim of these discussions must be to agree the names of six persons who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President”.
The paragraph does not suggest that the President will make nominations to the list and the insensibility of such a notion is oceanic. Even if in the first place such an interpretation of the CCJ’s ruling was possible, which it wasn’t, would it not conflict with the constitution? Did not the government hear the President of the CCJ, Justice Saunders emphasise on June 24 that to the extent that any law conflicts with the constitution the constitution reigns supreme? This would also be the case with any advice as in the paragraph cited by the government.
On the question of the CCJ’s ruling on the motion of no confidence, it had never entered the minds of rational thinkers that 33 would not be a majority in a parliament of 65. In opposing this common sense all the way to the CCJ along with other scattershot arguments, the government and the coterie of opportunists it has gathered since 2015 exposed themselves as seeking to extend their term in office and attendant appurtenances at the expense of the constitution. The government has gained more than three months following the successful motion of no confidence during which it has been on frenetic campaign swings throughout the country.
It is clear that the remedy to the deferred application of the motion of no confidence is that general elections should be held within three months or such extended period which would require the approval of the opposition. This would of necessity bring an end to the charade of house-to-house registration which has been championed by all parts of the administration without any cogent reason.
The onus falls on President Granger to show statesmanship and to defend the constitution to the fullest. If all else fails and there is no mature dialogue between the two sides then the CCJ will have the final say on July 12 and all sides will have to fastidiously adhere to its orders.
