…AG studying opposition’s interpretation of constitution

Little progress was made when Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Basil Williams, on Wednesday met with Opposition Parliamentarians, Mr. Anil Nandlall and Ms. Priya Manickchand, to clarify issues regarding the interpretation of the constitutional requirements for the appointment of a chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.
The meeting on Wednesday was requested by the Opposition Leader, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, after President David Granger, had rejected a list of six persons he had submitted to fill the post.
During the meeting on Wednesday, the Opposition presented its own interpretation, along with what they believe to be supporting case law and statutes, which Minister Williams has undertaken to carefully examine before a second meeting is organised within one week, the Ministry of the Presidency said in a release.
Williams, in an invited comment said that the meeting occurred at his office as mandated by President Granger, who on January 19, said that the most efficient way to ensure legal clarification on the requirements for the appointment of a Chairman of GECOM, would be for legal representatives of the Opposition and the Government to meet to discuss their interpretations of the Article. “I invited Mr. Nandlall to present their position and he did that relying on several cases and statutory authorities… Now, after they were complete, in order for me to treat properly with his submissions, I would be required, as in any court, any judge would have wanted an opportunity to read the cases that Mr. Nandlall cited and look at the statues that he mentioned. It would not have been propitious to do that at that time so we’ll have to gather in the authorities, read them to see whether what he is saying is coincident with what the authorities are saying,” Minister Williams said.

The Attorney General noted that while the Government has already established its position it will carefully examine the points, which have been put forward by Mr. Nandlall to ensure that the interests of the country are protected. “I could have indicated to him when you look at constrained, the provisions, one: “there shall” – it’s mandatory it tells that you must first look at the mandatory provisions, which deal with descending order: judge, retired judge, person who could be appointed a judge, who is qualified to be a judge and the …any other fit and proper person and so I could have done that and said, ‘Well I don’t agree with your interpretation but I’m doing better than that because it’s not a question of Mr. Nandlall and I. It’s a question of the people of Guyana and the question of the proper law to be applied for the future in relation these matters,” the Attorney General noted.
Minister Williams noted that during the course of the meeting, Ms. Manickchand did, however, concede that it is the President’s prerogative to determine who is a ‘fit and proper’ person, in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution. Article 161 (2) of the Constitution states that, “The Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth, or a court having jurisdictions in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit person.”
Meanwhile, in a statement of his own Nandlall on Wednesday confirmed that he and Manickchand had met with Williams. Nandlall said at the meeting, they proffered their interpretation of Article 161 of the Constitution, in writing, and we supported our position with a number of case law authorities from Guyana, the Caribbean and the Commonwealth.
“Attorney General, Mr. Basil Williams, was unprepared to put forward his or the government’s interpretation of Article 161 of the Constitution, despite our several requests for him to do so. Instead, he indicated that he will need time to interpret our contentions and prepare his response. All of the interpretations offered by us today were fully and publicly ventilated in the media. The meeting ended with the Attorney General being unable to identify another date available in his diary for us to meet again.” “I am disappointed by the lack of preparedness of the Attorney General, which resulted in nothing tangible emerging from the engagement. Moreover, the Attorney General could not even identify a date for our re-engagement. Quite frankly, I was hoping that the Attorney General would have been ready with his position on the matter today; that may have resulted in this matter being concluded with dispatch and decisively. In the meanwhile, Guyana’s democracy continues to hang in the balance. We consider this a matter of great national importance,” Nandlall said.