Dear Editor,
On Friday, March 24, 2023, Justice Gino Persaud delivered his ruling in the case of Paul Slowe v The Secretary of the Police Service Commission, et al.
In his concluding analysis the Judge said:
“Since Paul Slowe and the other Commissioners could only have been removed from constitutional office for cause on the aforesaid two grounds for removal it is axiomatic that they were and are entitled to their constitutional rights of protection of the law and due process.
The suspension of the Chairman and other members in the absence of the JSC and constituted Tribunal was a nuclear response by His Excellency, the President. The suspension proved permanent and tantamount to a removal from office without due process. The Constitution imbued the President with no power to suspend in the absence of a Tribunal and in doing so he acted ultra vires the constitution and unlawfully. A condition precedent to the executive power to suspend is the referral to and establishment of the Tribunal. This is a sine qua non to suspension and removal”.
The Judge went on to say:
In summary therefore, the decision of His Excellency, the President to suspend the Chairman and other members of the PSC was:
a. Unlawful
b. Ultra vires article 225 of the constitution
c. Arbitrary
d. Unreasonable
e. Unfair
f. In violation of the suspended Chairman and other Commissioner’s constitutional rights to the protection of the law and due process of the law
g. Null, void and of no legal effect.
More than one week has passed since that unprecedented ruling, which in my view has significant implications for the rule of law and jurisprudence in Guyana, and indeed, the entire British Commonwealth. Given that ruling, I would have expected a public outcry from many organisations, such as the Guyana Bar Association, The Guyana Association of Women Lawyers, Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), Article 13, The Guardians of Democracy, and many other organisations, not forgetting the many social media commentators and other individuals, and of course, the many political parties, some of whom were not so long ago, very vocal on issues relating to democracy, good governance and the rule of law in Guyana.
I remember very well in October of 2016 Mr. Anil Nandlall, the now Attorney General, who was at that time a prominent member of the opposition PPP/C, accusing President David Granger of “constitutional heresy”. This was in response to the President’s move to suspend the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Carvil Duncan, who was charged and placed before the court over alleged theft.
Mr. Nandlall said then, “The President has flagrantly violated the letter, spirit and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions and indeed his actions strike at the very heart of our constitutional democracy. Presidents (or Prime Ministers, as the case may be) have been impeached for far less in democratic countries. In Guyana this is barely front page news. And life goes on. Not a murmur from the Associations representing lawyers in the country”.
The former legal advisor to the governments of Presidents Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar, pointed to Article 94 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides that “The President may be removed from office if he or she commits any violation of this Constitution or any other gross misconduct”. Justice Gino Persaud ruled that the President violated the Constitution of Guyana.
It is amazing that the very acts, and more, that were alleged to have been committed by President Granger, which led to the Mr. Nandlall’s call for his impeachment were found, by a competent court, to have been committed by President Ali, yet there is no call for President’s Ali’s impeachment. The duplicity is astonishing! The silence is deafening! John Ray’s saying as far back as 1670 “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”, is very instructive.
Editor, from the ruling of Justice Gino Persaud it is pellucid that the President of Guyana, Mohamed Irfaan Ali, flagrantly violated the letter, spirit and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions when on June 16, 2021, he unlawfully suspended the Chairman and other members of the Police Service Commission. Therefore, according to the Attorney General Mr. Nandlall’s reasoning the President should be impeached in accordance with the provision of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.
Failing to take the appropriate action in this matter will only confirm what some have been saying, that is, the rule of law and democracy in Guyana are under severe threat from the Executive Branch of Government.
I anxiously await the response from all concerned to the constitutional heresy perpetuated by the Head of State.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Slowe CCH, DSM,
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Retired).
Former Chairman of the Police Service Commission.
