…warns against judiciary usurping executive

ATTORNEY General (AG) Basil Williams has accused the opposition of being duplicitous in their challenge to the appointment of Justice James Patterson as chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), 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.”

The AG made the comments in his affidavit in response to the PPP’s challenge by their Parliamentarian Zulfikar Mustapha. The PPP wants the court to rescind the appointment of Patterson.
Among some the arguments made in their challenge are: Patterson is a pastor; he was employed by the President and that he misled the President on his curriculum vitae when he stated that he is a former Chief Justice of Grenada when in fact he was the acting chief justice.

In his response, Williams said that these matters are irrelevant, speculative, malicious, frivolous, and vexatious and ought to be struck out forthwith.
“I further contend that… the Honourable Justice Patterson’s theological training, learning and/or pastoring a church are insufficient grounds to deem him or any person a religious activist. I am advised further and do verily believe that the Honourable Justice Patterson is no longer a serving pastor and has not served as a pastor since 2005,”Williams argued.

He pointed out that “It is duplicitous for the applicant to seek to allude to the past pastoral role of Honourable Justice Patterson when the Leader of the Opposition on his third list nominated Mr. Onesi La Fleur, who is currently a serving pastor.” La Fleur is a Seventh-day Adventist currently serving in Trinidad and Tobago. He held the position of youth director and other positions when he served in the Guyana Conference.

Williams also argued that Patterson being a member of the advisory committee of the Prerogative of Mercy can in no way hinder his ability to be impartial, objective and independent, asserting that such an appointment demonstrates and enhances his ability to be impartial, objective and independent.

“It is therefore deceitful for the applicant to aver to the advisory capacity of Justice Patterson, even as the leader of the opposition in his first list nominated Mr. Christopher Ram, who also served as adviser to the Honourable Attorney General on the establishment of the Joseph Haynes Law School,” Williams argued.

With respect to Patterson’s role as a member of the Ministerial Council of Legal Advisers comprising five legal luminaries, Williams slammed the PPP for “falsely” claiming that he (Patterson) earns $800,000 monthly.

“I will contend that the applicant’s unfounded and mischievous assertion that the Honourable Justice Patterson is receiving the sum of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00) is an outright falsehood and is rejected fully. I am further advised as aforesaid and verily believe that Cabinet approved a monthly honorarium of twenty thousand Guyana dollars ($20,000.00) for the chairperson and fifteen thousand Guyana dollars (G$15,000.00) for each member. I attach hereto a copy of the Cabinet decision appointing the said Ministerial Council.” Justice Claudette Singh had earlier called out Anil Nandlall for lying when he made the false claim of Patterson’s remuneration. Justice Singh also serves on the council.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Commentators had pointed out that both Christopher Ram and Major-General (rtd), Joe Singh, both of whom appeared on the lists submitted by Jagdeo, would have been deemed unacceptable by the same arguments made by the PPP and the AG said while Patterson’s services were available to other ministers, Ram’s as an adviser to him were voluntary and specific to him.

“I further contend that since the leader of the opposition placed Mr. Christopher Ram on his first list, both of them believed that Mr. Ram was not unfit because he was an adviser to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs and as such it is hypocritical for the Applicant to claim that Honourable Justice James Patterson is disqualified for being such an adviser.”

Ram has since resigned the position. “I further contend that the leader of the opposition similarly felt that Major-General Joe Singh was fit and proper to be placed on his third list despite being a paid adviser of the President,” Williams said.

The AG argued too that the leader of the opposition included Major-General Singh on his third list despite the fact that he had been appointed more times than Patterson to conduct commissions of inquiry under the President’s watch, and could not seriously contend such appointments rendered the major-general unfit for the GECOM Chair.

CJ ACTING 
The PPP has made a major plank of their challenge to Justice Patterson’s appointment his inclusion of Chief Justice of Grenada and not Chief Justice (ag).
Justice Patterson two weeks ago clarified that the error was “a slip of the pen” and Williams in his affidavit said that the terms Chief Justice and Chief Justice acting are used interchangeably within the region and even more particularly it is so used in Guyana.

He said he was informed by Justice Patterson that the fact that the word “acting” did not appear after the words “Chief Justice” was not an intention to deceive and further that does not negate the fact that he held and executed the functions of the office.
“I am informed by the Honourable Justice Patterson and do verily believe that during his tenure of Chief Justice acting and even after that tenure [had] expired, persons who knew him then and even to this day call him ‘Chief’ or ‘Chief Justice’ or ‘My Lord’ as the case may be and that is a common practice in such offices.”

The AG maintains that President David Granger acted lawfully, within the parameters of the constitution of Guyana, and in particular in accordance with Article 161(2) of the constitution of Guyana.

“I will further contend that this entire application is absurd, misconceived and void of legal reasoning and merit and ought to be dismissed with substantial costs, since His Excellency the President cannot be directed to choose a person from the lists of 18 which he specifically rejected.”