After setting timelines for the laying over of “skeletal arguments” by the attorneys on the substantive appeals filed by the Attorney General (AG) to challenge two of the High Court judgements on the validity of the no-confidence motion against government, acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards yesterday fixed March 12th as the date for oral submissions to be made.
Joined on the Full Bench of the Court of Appeal by Justices Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, Justice Cummings-Edwards announced that the court would proceed to hear two of the five appeals filed as those records have been settled.
The judges met with the attorneys involved in the two appeals at the Kingston courthouse for a “consideration session” which lasted just over an hour and a half.
Last month, Williams appealed the decision in the action on the motion that he brought against Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo and the decision in the action initiated by chartered accountant Christopher Ram. He subsequently asked the Court of Appeal for orders to stay the effects of two judgments and to keep the President, the Cabinet and government in place until his appeals are heard and determined. Earlier this week, Justice Persaud fixed March 15th as the date for oral arguments in those applications.
The AG in the case he filed in the High Court had contended that the support of an “absolute majority” of 34 of the 65 elected Members of Parliament was needed for the confidence motion to pass. However Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wilshire on January 31st held that 33 elected members constitute a majority. The motion was passed by a vote of 33 to 32 members.
“So, therefore, the ruling of the Speaker that the no-confidence motion… was carried by a vote of majority of all elected members of the National Assembly is thus lawful and valid and made in accordance with the requirements of Article 106 (6),” the judge said.
In the action filed by Ram, Justice George-Wiltshire found that while there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to formal resignation of the Cabinet, she believed that it was automatically triggered by the passage of the motion. She went on to say that even though Cabinet has resigned, the President remains the President and the ministers remain ministers to perform their duties and functions of office.
Williams filed appeals challenging those decisions a few days later.
His contention is that the judge “erred and misdirected herself in law” when she ruled that the motion was validly passed and that the Cabinet should have resigned and preparation for elections within the constitutional timeframe should have commenced. This timeframe, according to the constitution, is three months.
During yesterday’s session, Roysdale Forde, the attorney for APNU General Secretary Joseph Harmon repeated an oral application he had made a day earlier, asking that his client be added as a party to the appeal filed by the AG in the Ram case. He told the court that given the fact that he is an added party in the initial matters filed by the AG and the one filed on behalf of private citizen Compton Reid, and given the fact that all the matters are connected, any decisions made in either one will affect his client. “Yes… there are things in the Ram matter that would affect Mr. Harmon,” he said in response to objections from both attorney Anil Nandlall, who is representing the Leader of the Opposition, and attorney Kamal Ramkarran, who is representing Ram.
After listening to all the parties, Justice Cummings-Edwards informed them that Forde will be allowed for the time being to file submissions in the Ram case as an intervening party.
On Harmon’s behalf, two appeals in the cases brought by Reid against Scotland, former Member of Parliament Charrandass Persaud and the AG, as well as the case brought by the AG were filed.
Forde and attorney Olayne Joseph, in the Notices of Appeal, contend that there is dissatisfaction with both decisions in their entirety, including that the vote of Persaud on the motion was deemed valid even though he was disqualified from being an elected member of the National Assembly given his Canadian citizenship.
Meanwhile, one of Reid’s attorneys, Robert Corbin, informed the court that he was concerned with the time schedule being fixed, given the fact that the matters are being heard together. He said the decisions that were being made will have an “impact” on the Reid matter before reminding the court of the March 15th hearing before Justice Persaud.
“I was wondering whether or not it will be overcrowding the court with seeking to have both matters being addressed at the same time,” he said before inquiring what is likely to happen on March 12th. In response, the Chancellor said that that is a hearing date.
Reid, through his legal team, said that he was dissatisfied with the entire decision in the case that he filed and therefore asked the Appellate Court to set it aside.
Corbin pointed out that he doesn’t want his appeal to be “restricted by decisions” that were being made. “There ought to be adequate time for the appellants and respondents to properly address this court on what I consider to be a matter of very significant… public importance,” he said.
He added that the court is being asked to address a fundamental issue for the “future of the Republic.” He said that these are important issues of interpretation of the Constitution “for the future and not necessarily to deal only with what people perceive to be a crisis at this moment and to be moving with undue haste just because of political imperatives… will not be in keeping with the expectations of this society.”
Earlier, Justice Cummings-Edwards informed that the records in Reid’s appeal are not yet finalised and, therefore, the matter is not yet before the court.
Williams, in a brief comment to the media, reiterated that timelines have been given for the hearing of the substantive appeals. He said that skeletal arguments will be submitted and all parties will return to court on March 12th.
Nandlall expressed hope that the matters will be heard swiftly.
“I don’t need any time. The submissions which were made in the court below are the submissions which I will lay over. I only need to change the names of the parties and to put in the appellate court. I think all the parties should be in a position to do the same and the court should hear and determine the matter as quickly as is reasonably possible so that we can move to the next stage,” he told reporters outside the court.
He said that while Reid’s record of appeal is not yet ready, it is hoped that it will be during the course of next week. “Hopefully, we can fit it in the timeframe so that matter is not left out because the issues are very related if not identical and they were all heard and determined together in any event and it would be ideal if we could get them to be heard again at the appellate stage… together,” he added.
