Insisting that the December 21 no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government was validly passed, the opposition PPP last evening dismissed the resort to the judiciary to challenge the results, contending that the courts have no jurisdiction and the Constitution protects the vote.
“We maintain that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed and the Speaker’s ruling that (it) was so passed, accompanied by the Clerk’s affirmation, cannot be enquired into or interfered with, by the Judiciary. Moreover, the Judiciary has no jurisdiction to violate or extend any timeframe prescribed by the Constitution, since the Constitution is supreme and the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution, not vice versa,” the PPP said in a press release yesterday.
Private citizen Compton Reid filed proceedings in the High Court yesterday challenging the no-confidence motion. Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, who hears constitutional matters, is expected to set a date for hearing sometime next week. Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland on Thursday refused to reverse his recognition of the December 21 no-confidence motion which passed following a `yes’ vote from former government MP Charrandas Persaud. Government subsequently indicated an intention to move to the courts and said they are prepared to take the matter all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Pointing out that the “main plank” of the legal proceedings is that Persaud was not qualified to be elected to the National Assembly because he is a citizen of Canada, the PPP yesterday pointed out that it was the APNU+AFC that placed him in the National Assembly and relied on his vote for the past three years. The party charged that the coalition is “prepared to put the entire nation into chaos and do untold damage to our national interest by invalidating everything done and every law passed in the Parliament, since 2015.”
Article 165 (2) of the Constitution, however, the PPP said, makes provisions for such eventualities and deficiencies of the type mentioned cannot invalidate proceedings, in which an affected member may have participated.
Article 165 (2) states, “The Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership (including any vacancy not filled when the Assembly first meets after the commencement of this Constitution or after any dissolution of Parliament) and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly shall not invalidate those proceedings.”
According to the PPP, “the legal proceedings filed is, therefore, frivolous and is simply intended to be used by the Coalition Government as a lifeline to remain unlawfully and unconstitutionally in Office.”
The party urged the Judiciary not to be complicit in “any conspiracy to undermine and flout the Constitution and make a mockery of our democracy.” In the release, the party expressed an expectation that the matter would be heard on a day-to-day basis and that the Judiciary would not “contribute to the Government’s violation of the Constitution.”
The party added that it will join the proceedings and invited other interested parties to do likewise.
No power
PPP executive Anil Nandlall on Thursday, addressed in more detail some of the points raised in the press release. Speaking on the party-operated Freedom Radio, Nandlall, a former Attorney General, insisted that the court has no power to alter what is outlined in the Constitution.
He explained that the government remains in office for five years unless removed by a no-confidence motion. He added that once one was passed, government is mandated to follow the steps outlined in the Constitution, which includes the resignation of cabinet including the president and the holding of elections within 90 days.
“Why are we going to court? This is not a matter that the court has any business to interfere with. The Constitution is supreme in our legal system…It is that instrument that creates the entire state structure in Guyana, the entire government, the entire legal architecture,” he said, adding that the Constitution stands at the top and gives direction to each of the branches of government, organs and officers of the state.
Nandlall, speaking on the radio programme hours after Scotland’s announcement, which was made at a scheduled sitting of the House, emphasised that in keeping with the supremacy of the Constitution, the court has no business dealing with the matter. “It (the Constitution) is quite clear and has outlined simple, not complicated steps. Resignation of the president and his cabinet, elections and they are to remain in office until those elections are held. If they win, then they form the next government; if they lose, they move out and they make way for the next government. What are you going to court for,” he questioned.
“The court now is being asked to interfere with the Constitution and the court and the judges have no power to do so,” he stressed.
Attorney General Basil Williams told reporters after Scotland’s ruling that he would seek an order staying the holding of general elections within the legally stipulated 90 days. Nandlall on Thursday dismissed this as outrageous. “This is the Attorney General of this country. He has to speak with greater responsibility and he has to say things that are less outrageous and less bizarre than what he has been saying…How can the court suspend the Constitution from taking effect? That is what he is asking the court to do. He is asking the court to put the Constitution on hold,” he said.
Nandlall stressed that the Constitution cannot be put on hold as it is the “boss” of the court, not the other way around. “I don’t know which judge would think they have the power to put a constitutional timetable on hold,” he said adding that this timeframe can only be interfered with if there is an amendment to the Constitution. He reminded that the framers of the Constitution have inserted that the two parties must go back to the parliament and approve by a two-thirds majority, any extension of the timeframe.
Penned
Nandlall also reminded that last week on behalf of the PPP, he wrote to the judiciary asking that the party be heard before any order is made in the High Court in relation to this matter. He explained that this letter was penned to prevent any “jiggery-pokery attempt” by the Attorney General.
He insisted that under the natural justice process, the PPP must be heard given that it can be affected by any order made in the High Court. Contending that the government does not care if they lose or win, he said that the court action is a mechanism that would allow government to continue to “squat and trespass.”
“The judiciary has no legal jurisprudential or constitutional mandate to cause that constitutional clock to stop ticking. It has no such mandate…the Constitution is the omnipotent legal force in this country…It remains the fountain head. It makes you and it can break you,” he stressed.
Nandlall was also dismissive of the dual citizenship argument being advanced by government.
“We never put Charrandas in the Parliament. They put Charrandas in the Parliament. That’s the first thing so they must have known or they should have known that Charrandas was in that Parliament unlawfully. If they didn’t know, they ought to know or else they were tremendously reckless,” Nandlall said
He pointed out that government relied on Persaud’s vote for the past three years to pass laws and all the other things they have done in Parliament.
“The law is not an ass. The law will not allow you to use it and abuse it at your own convenience. You cannot prostitute the law to meet your own ends. The law says that you cannot approbate and reprobate. There are principles and concepts established over the years that will prevent you from exploiting the law in that way,” he said.
Pointing out that the government has benefited from the “wrong” and cannot now want to take advantage of the “wrong,” Nandlall argued that this could create chaos because, according to him, everything that Persaud participated in would have to be reversed.
Nandlall later stressed that the President and Leader of the Opposition cannot agree to do anything outside of the Constitution. “Whatever discussions they have, it has to be within the four corners of the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” he said.
He added that while neither the President nor the Opposition Leader can or should attempt to give directions to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM,) they can inquire about their readiness or emphasise that the Constitution mandates 90 days.
“If GECOM communicates to them that they are not ready and both of them are satisfied that GECOM is being bona fide and GECOM is also not part of a political design but GECOM is faithfully and honestly and with integrity saying that the machinery is not ready, then it would be incumbent on the President and the Leader of the Opposition to go to the Parliament …and extend that time to meet GECOM’s readiness but that should only be a last resort,” he said.
