–as Opposition moves to high court

By Alexis Rodney

MINSTER of State, Mr Joseph Harmon said government is not bothered by the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP)’s move to the high court.

The Opposition’s move to the High Court is to counter the President’s appointment of Justice James Patterson, the new chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and according to Minister Harmon, the administration is more than ready to defend its decision.

PPP executive member, Mr Anil Nandlall on Monday announced that the opposition has filed a “constitutional challenge”, declaring that the presidential appointment of Justice Patterson is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect. The challenge also declares that Justice Patterson is unqualified to be appointed chairman of GECOM in accordance with Article 161 (2) of the Constitution.

“We are seeking an order rescinding, revoking or quashing the appointment of Patterson as Chairman,” he said.

“We are seeking an order removing him from office, and we are seeking an order directing the president to choose a person from the 18 names submitted to him by the opposition leader, or for the court to make any appropriate order as the court sees fit,” he told media operatives gathered on the corridor of the High Court moments after filing the challenge.

The application was filed by PPP’s executive secretary, Zulficar Mustapha.

Nandlall, who is hoping that an early date is fixed for the hearing, said he also intends to write the Chancellor of the Judiciary asking that the matter be heard expeditiously.

Contending that the matter at hand has no indisputable facts, Nandlall said:
“A lot of the legal questions here have already been answered by the Chief Justice in the Gaskin matter. Once the issues are identified, we can proceed.”

Immediately following President David Granger’s appointment of the retired judge last Thursday, Opposition leader Bharat Jagdeo said that his party would move to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), if need be, to reverse the appointment, which he is claiming is in breach of the Constitution of Guyana.

Minister Harmon is holding out that the President acted within the confines of the Constitution, and said that if the situation reaches the stage where it has to go to the ICJ, then so be it.

“The President has the constitutional right to do what he did, and if the opposition wants to go to court, we have the attorney general’s chambers that will deal with that,” he told the Guyana Chronicle on Monday.

President Granger had, back in March of this year, pointed out that Article 161 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana states:

“Subject to the provisions of Paragraph (4), 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 jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person…”

Local businessman, Mr Marcel Gaskin had, however, approached the High Court for an interpretation of the Article, which resulted in the acting chief justice confirming that the President was within his rights to do so; that acting on his own deliberate judgment, it is he who must determine whether a person is ‘fit and proper’.

Justice George-Wiltshire, in her ruling, had advised that there was no legal requirement for the President to state reasons for rejecting a list.

Last Thursday evening, President Granger appointed Justice Patterson at State House following a meeting with Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo. At that meeting, the President reportedly informed Mr Jagdeo that he’d disapproved of the third list of nominees which was submitted some weeks ago.

President Granger said he found the third list of nominees, which he received from the Opposition Leader on August 25, to be unacceptable, within the meaning of the Constitution.

He said he’d also paid careful attention to the ruling of Justice George-Wiltshire in the case, Marcel Gaskin vs the Attorney-General.