Dear Editor,
It is with considerable dismay that I read Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran’s recent lamentation in the Sunday Stabroek of 25th August, 2019 `CCJ has failed Guyana, it’s now up to GECOM Chair – Ramkarran’ and also carried in his blog Conversation Tree
Mr. Ramkarran declares in most regrettable language –
“The timid, indecisive and ineffectual decision-making of the CCJ has brought elections no closer, has left the Guyanese people defenceless in the face of an egregious assault on their constitutional rights, and has left open its decision to more than one interpretation. The Caribbean Court of Justice has failed Guyana.”
This is a most unfortunate utterance, especially from one who ought to (and I am sure does) know better. The CCJ is our highest Court and as such, it should be given the utmost respect, especially by a member of the Inner Bar.
To address Mr. Ramkarran’s allegations themselves, what was “timid”, or “ineffectual” about the orders pronounced on 12 July, 2019?
The official release by the Court said that the CCJ noted that there is clear guidance in Article 106 of Guyana’s Constitution on what should happen next. The Court stated – “Upon the passage of a vote of no confidence, the Article requires the resignation of the Cabinet including the President. The Article goes on to state, among other things, that notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and that an election shall be held “within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine”.
The Court noted that the filing of the court proceedings in January, challenging the validity of the no confidence vote, effectively placed matters on pause. The Court reminded, however, that it had rendered its decision on 18 June 2019. As to the precise orders it should make, the CCJ cautioned, however, that it is not, “the role of the Court to establish a date on, or by which, the elections must be held”. Article 106 is clear and it should be followed.
The CCJ did express the view that it is expected that the Government will continue as a caretaker for the affairs of the country but that in light of its caretaker role it should be restrained in the use of its legal authority.” (see http://www.ccj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Press-Release-CCJ-Issues-Definitive-Orders-in-Guyana-Cases.pdf).
What more would Mr. Ramkarran wish the CCJ to have ruled? To have set a date for elections itself? Guyana’s Constitution is predicated on a separation of powers, these being shared between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, as Senior Counsel is well aware. The CCJ as a final appellate court unequivocally stated that it was not going to enter upon what is exclusively a function of the Executive (i.e. political) arm and to set a date for elections. The Constitution is pellucid as to who must do that: The President. No one else. Had the CCJ been so rash as to embark upon the course being urged by Senior Counsel, it would have been trespassing upon one of the functions reserved to the Executive, and would have exposed itself to accusations of entering the political realm. Courts must always be very careful to guard their authority and not to expose it to disrespect and ridicule.
The CCJ interpreted the constitutional and legal issues brought before it, ruled definitively on these issues, and then stated that it was now up to the other two branches of the State to perform their constitutionally demarcated duties. In the present situation, the political actors must all display a certain level of maturity and undertake their respective functions. They have their own clearly constitutionally defined responsibilities and functions. Mr. Ramkarran cannot expect the Court to blithely assume these, and it is manifestly unfair for him to pillory it for not doing so when the Court has done its own part which is to elucidate the law.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew M. F. Pollard SC
