What a tangled web of deceit Mr Ramkarran has weaved

Dear Editor,

RALPH Ramkarran, S.C. has replied to my letter captioned, “Ramkarran’s misleading criticisms of Gecom exposed,” published in the Guyana Chronicle on Thursday, November 7, 2019 (see “would Maxwell E Edwards accept that Justice Claudette Singh could have erred” Sunday Chronicle, November 10, 2019). Senior Counsel, here is my emphatic, unequivocal, dismissive response – NO.

First of all, to be sure and clear: my point is not that article 159 (2) ( C ) is not in the 1980 Constitution. That could not be, and was not, my point. Of course article 159 (2) ( C ) is NOW in the Constitution in the Nandlall Edition (2012) print of the Laws of Guyana. My point, or argument, which is not, but which you have made disputatious, is that article 159 (2) ( C ) was not (by amendment or alteration) inserted into, and was not a provision in the 1980 Constitution, at the relevant and material date i.e 15th December 1997 being the date of the 1997 GREs.

It was on that date of our constitutional law, then, that Esther Perreira was decided. Relevantly, I quote: from my letter of November 7 “you see at the time of the 1997 GRE there was no article 159 (2) ( C) in our Constitution [only article 159 2 ( a ) and (b)….]. But after the 1997 GRE and perhaps because of its vitiation that state of the law was changed when the Constitution was altered/amended by the introduction of a sub article ( C ) to article 159 (2).

THAT NEWLY INTRODUCED article 159 (2) ( C )” [emphasis now added] “about qualifications of voters provides….”. True it is, that as MR. Ramkarran asserts I did”not say when it was enacted, nor did he identify the law.” I did not, because generality was sufficient; I could not have anticipated that the pure, simple, easily verifiable fact (no complication of law involved) that sub article “ ( C )” was not in the Constitution in 1997, was to be a source of dispute, contention and callous rejections of my thesis by the learned Senior Counsel. But truth be told, I am no practitioner of legislative history. So, identifying the particular “law”/amendment Act that insertedsubartice“(c)” – that is much too boring, dull stuff for me.It was not necessary for the cogency of my argument.

Secondly, since Mr. Ramkarran (as I understand his letter) seeks to convey in his November 10th letter the erroneous and misleading impression that article 159 (2) ( C ) was in the Constitution from the very beginning when it came into force, on 6th October 1980, here for informational purposes, is the legislative history: (i) the 1980 Constitution Bill as passed (No 2/1980) was assented to by President A. Chung on 20 February 1980 and came into operation on 6th October 1980 by Proclamation No 2 of 1980 made by the President on 1st October 1980 and published in the official Gazette on the same day [(re) search as Mr. Ramkarran might, he would not find any sub article “ ( C )”only “(a)”, “(b)” in that OG print/publication of 1st October 1980!] (ii) Between 6th October 1980 and 1995 there were some twelve(12) amendments to the Constitution – the last being the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1995 Act No 15 of 1995. [(re)search as Mr.

Ramkarran might, he would not find in any of these 12 amendments any reference as to article 159 (2) ( C ) (up to that point there was, simply, no such amendment or change in the law.) (iii) after that 15/1995 amendment, the next amendment/change in the Constitution was in 2000 (Act 2/2000). (iv) So, there was no amendment whatsoever between 1995 and 1999 (the 4 year period within which the 1997 GRE falls).

Third, Mr Ramkarran makes the embarrassing mistake or error (as if responding to one of Freddie Kissoon’s political diatribes) of not appreciating, or recognising, that the relevant law that Justice Claudette Singh had to apply in her determination of the legal question of constitutionality of the qualification of voter ID card, was ONLY the law in force on the 15th December, 1997 date of the 1997 GRE. The Constitution does not apply retroactively, so she could not apply the law as changed after 1997. (see Attorney General V. Mohamed Alli and others (1987) 41 WIR 176- the local Court of Appeal constitutional law case). For most lawyers, that non-retroactivity is a trite proposition. Yet, Senior Counsel writes flippantly: “I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Edwards. Article 159 (2) ( C) was in the 1980 Constitution. I can fathom no reason why Mr. Edwards would falsely assert that it was not when a mere cursory glance of the 1980 Constitution would confirm that it was. It was indeed urged before Justice Claudette Singh that article 159 ( 2 ) ( C ) protected the constitutionality of the voter ID law”. Another error.

Well, Senior Counsel, here is the obvious reason, yet, you cannot “fathom”! I have right here now, and before me, (as I did when I wrote the November 7th letter) an authentic, admissible copy of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana (1980) “with Amendents Incorporated. Reprinted October 1996.”(And I emphasize that between the gap from 1995 – 1999 there was no amendment whatsoever to the 1980 Constitution; not one jot!) There is NOT in this October 1996 reprint at pages 86-87, any article 159 (2) (C) at all. This is my evidence, this is my proof. [update – I also now have the advantage of seeing the OG, “Legal Supplement – A 20th February 1980, page 80” (the Bill)] Show the readers yours. Readers, by a somewhat Ramkarranian illogicality, his argument proceeds on the erroneous premise or assumption, that the law as is in the Nandlall Ed. (2012) of the Laws of Guyana viz article “159 (2)” (a)”, “(b)”, “(c)”, is the same law as was in the Constitution in 1997. So, rather than do the logical thing and (re)search the Constitution that was in print in 1997, when, had he done so, he would have found only article “159 (2) “(a),” “(b),”, he instead takes a “mere cursory glance” (his words) at the extant Nandlall Ed (2012), and by a somewhat procrustean (as would procrusteas the monster in Greek mythology) method of deduction, torturously, and flippantly treats the extant 2012 state of the law, as if it was, necessarily, one and the same, as the 1997 state of the law. What an error! The issue is: was article 159 (2) ( C ) in the Constitution on the 15th December 1997 date of the 1997 GRE? I say, again, unapologetically, and without equivocation: IT WAS NOT. Editor, I only stir this other point (as this letter is no place for its elucidation): provisions as to qualifications for being registered as an elector for voting is not, and cannot be, as they are worded and provided for in article 159 (2) (a), ( b), ( C ) some matter of procedure. Such, is a matter of SUBSTANTIVE law which, if there is a change in that substantive law between the 1997 GRE, and Justice Claudette Singh’s decision some three years later in Esther Perreira, that new substantive law [ie article 159 (2) (c] has no retrospective applicability, generally.

One final comment. Mr. Ramkarran writes in his November 10th letter: “ Now that Mr. Edwards has been shown the light of day, would he accept that Justice Claudette Singh could have erred”. A baiting, I dismissively reject. Subjecting Esther Perreira now to close forensic examination can serve no useful purpose as regards the present controversy about compilation of the OLE for the 2020 GRE. The “light of day”! Mr. Ramkarran has attempted to take us down a dungeon of deceit. His, is an obstinate persistence in incredulity, of a comedy of errors. What a tangled web of deceit Mr. Ramkarran has weaved. I will not be trapped. The article 159 (2) ( C ) amendment happened after 1999. The burden of disproof is on him.

Regards,
Maxwell E Edwards
Attorney – at – law

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.