‘I don’t want to put a gag order’
Attorney General Basil Williams speaks with government supporters outside the High Court on Thursday (Samuel Maughn)
Attorney General Basil Williams speaks with government supporters outside the High Court on Thursday (Samuel Maughn)

…Chief Justice warns lawyers against trying GECOM case in public

CHIEF Justice (ag) Roxanne George-Wiltshire on Thursday called on lawyers to be cautious in their utterances on constitutionality of the appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

Attorney, Anil Nandlall (Samuel Maughn)

Just before she outlined the time frame for both sides to submit all requisite documents to the court, the Chief Justice said she has over the past few weeks observed the headlines in the local media on the matter. Those headlines, she said, in her opinion amount to both sides trying the case in the court of public opinion. “The headlines are inciting so I caution both sides to be very, very careful in what we say to the media and public,” said Justice George-Wiltshire, as she urged both sides to respect her comments in this regard.

She noted that persons are free to comment on the decisions of the court but should not be contemptuous. “Do not engage the public in this case,” the Chief Justice told attorneys before a courtroom full of supporters of the ruling APNU+AFC coalition and the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP). “I don’t want to put a gag order,” she said sternly, as she reminded attorneys of the need to be responsible.

Meanwhile, Justice George-Wiltshire outlined a timeline for the filing of submissions by both sides. The PPP through its Executive Secretary, Zulfikar Mustapha, have until December 18 to file its submissions to the court, while the Attorney General’s Chambers has until December 18 to file its response.

The PPP has until January 3, 2018 to file its response to the AG’s submissions after which both sides will return to court on January 5, 2018 for a hearing. That hearing will deal specifically with clarifications and oral arguments. Mustapha, in October, moved to the High Court to declare that the appointment of Justice (ret’d) James Patterson as Chairman of the GECOM is unconstitutional and null, void and of no legal effect.

Additionally, he has asked the Court to grant an order “rescinding, revoking, cancelling and setting aside the appointment” of Patterson and further asking the High Court to choose a person from the 18 nominees submitted to the President by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo. Jagdeo submitted six names on three lists all of which were rejected by President David Granger who deemed the nominees unfit for the post.

The PPP through its Executive Secretary also contends that Patterson does not have the required qualifications, and integrity to be GECOM Chair. Additionally, Mustapha contends that the retired judge cannot be or appear to be politically impartial and independent in the discharge of the functions of his office, on the grounds that he is a member of the advisory Committee on the Prerogative Mercy appointed by the President; an advisor to the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs appointed by the President, the Attorney-General or someone in the President’s Government; was appointed by the President to head a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into a prison break at Georgetown, Guyana, during the month of July, 2017; and he was appointed by the President to be part of a panel to reviewing applications for the positions of Chief Justice and Chancellor of the Judiciary. Additionally, he contends that President Granger violated the Constitution by “unilaterally” appointing Patterson and not a nominee from the lists provided by Jagdeo.

DUPLICITOUS
However, the Attorney General, Basil Williams has accused the Opposition of being duplicitous in their challenge to the appointment of Justice James Patterson as GECOM Chairman, pointing out that on almost all of the grounds they deem him to be unfit, leading nominees submitted by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo fell down in.

He also contended that for the judicial arm to entertain and grant such an application would encroach on the very principles of separation of powers and the spirit and intendment of the constitution and an affront to the rule of law. “I will further contend that such a direction would be tantamount to a usurpation of the powers of the executive arm of government by the judiciary, who cannot govern,” Williams said in his affidavit submitted and sworn to by Solicitor-General Kim Kyte.

He argued that the immunities of the President are enshrined in the Constitution, by virtue of Article 182(1). “It directs that His Excellency the President shall not be personally answerable to any Court for the performance of the functions of his or her own office or for any act done in the performance of those functions and no proceedings, whether criminal or civil, shall be instituted against him or her in his or her personal capacity in respect thereof, either during his or her term of office or thereafter.”

Williams described the contentions by Mustapha as irrelevant, speculative, malicious, frivolous, and vexatious and ought to be struck out forthwith. Mustapha, was represented by Attorney, Anil Nandlall, while the State was represented by the Attorney General; Solicitor General, Kim Kyte and Principal Legal Advisor, Judy Stuart. Following the adjournment of the case, Williams attended to a small group of vociferous APNU+AFC supporters who gathered outside of the court in solidarity.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.