— can be applied by the court, legal luminary says
— contends there is no constitutional crisis

THE court, in keeping with the doctrine of necessity, has the powers to grant an extension to the constitutional deadline, one of Guyana’s leading legal minds said as he ruled out the notion that the country will erupt into a constitutional crisis if March 21 passes and the National Assembly does not grant an extension by a two-third majority.

According to him, “like it or not, the court is in the driving seat” and will determine the way forward – it has the powers to do so.
“The court will determine what happens if the time runs out or is about to run out. It will make that determination. No other organ in the state is capable of so doing… the court is the organ, the institution responsible for making that kind of determination,” he explained.

The no-confidence motion brought against the government last December has triggered the need for early elections; however, not only is the matter engaging the attention of the Court of Appeal, the Guyana Elections Commission, the constitutional body responsible for holding elections, has indicated that it lacks the technical and financial capability to do so within the three month timeframe.

Given the circumstances, the legal luminary said the court could depend on the doctrine of necessity, and grant an extension.
“If it so happens that the court is in the process of resolving an issue or enquiring into an issue, and the time stipulated in the Constitution has been overshot, then the court could rely on the doctrine of necessity and give such extensions as are required in the circumstances,” he further explained.

NO PENDING CRISIS
He said there is no constitutional crisis or pending crisis. The Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and its allies have been contending that once the National Assembly does not grant an extension for the holding of elections in accordance with Article 106(7) of the Constitution, the country will be plunged into a Constitutional crisis. But this is not the case, says the legal luminary.

“The lawyers in Guyana can shout crisis, crisis, three million times, that doesn’t make it a crisis. The court makes the determination in situation like this, and if it is a case of necessity, the court will take such action as the necessity requires,” he said, while emphasising that there is not even a prospect of a crisis in Guyana.

He said the court must be allowed to do its work. “We are in a position now where one organ of government, the court, is in the process of carrying out its functions according to the Constitution which includes interpretation and application of the Constitution. The court must be allowed to do its work as intended,” he told the Guyana Chronicle.
The legal luminary stressed that no one can force the court to rule on the matter within a particular period because there are procedures that ought to be followed.

“At present before the court is the critical issue on whether the motion of no-confidence allegedly passed on 21st December, 2018, is it legitimate or not. My contention is, the court has to resolve that issue and the court will resolve it in its own time, expeditiously. Until the court has made a determination on that issue, everything has to come to a stop,” he said.

However, he noted that the court also has extra judicial powers. “But it is an elementary rule of construction, especially of Constitutions that where the court is called upon to interpret provisions of a Constitution but the consequences of any such interpretation leads to an absurdity, the court is permitted and expected to be engaged in what is called interstitial articulation, that is framing whatever rules are required to put things on a secure and rational basis,” he explained.

IMAGINARY
He emphasised that there is no pending constitutional crisis. “There is no constitutional crisis except in the imaginations of one or another Charlatan, who at the end of the day, is incapable of giving a rational and consistent construction of the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, there is no crisis,” he said.

Contrary to the views expressed by the opposition and its allies, the distinguished Guyanese said government continues to act within the realm of the Constitution.
“The administration has so far acted in compliance with the Constitution, if it did not, it would not have gotten support from the international community or from the diplomatic community in Guyana. The countries associated with the Guyana Government today are sticklers for the rule of law and they will not be entertaining any association with any country…. if in their own thinking it would be contrary to the rule of law,” he explained.

He emphasised that the court as the interpreter of the Constitution is now in charge and will guide the country on the way forward.
According to former Georgetown Deputy Mayor, Sherod Duncan, a constitutional crisis occurred in Guyana in 1997 and surrounded the elections which culminated with the end of the Herdmanston Accord in 2001 and second, the subsequent voiding of those elections on the basis that they were unconstitutional.

Another, he said, occurred in 2001 and revolved around the decision of Justice Claudette Singh in the Elections Petition Case of 1997. Justice Singh vitiated those elections, stating among other things that the Voter ID Card legislation at that time was unconstitutional.