… dismisses the Fixed Date Application

JUSTICE Navindra Singh on Wednesday upheld that the Guyana Cricket Administration Act is constitutional and in his ruling dismissed the Fixed Date Application filed by the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB).

Below is a full release from the Solicitor General, Ministry of Legal Affairs General’s Chambers.

On May 28, 2018 a Fixed Date Application (FDA) was filed by the Guyana Cricket Board et al challenging the provisions of the Guyana Cricket Administration Act. The applicants applied for several declarations and other reliefs which revolved around one central assertion, that is, that the Guyana Cricket Administration Act, Cap 21:03 of the Laws of Guyana is unconstitutional.

The FDA is identical in claim and relief sought in High Court Action No. 2014-HC-DEM-CIV-CM-106, the Guyana Cricket Board et al versus the AG and Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport. That matter was deemed abandoned and incapable of being revived by the Honourable Justice Harnanan after the applicants failed to file their Statement of Claim on time.

The matter came up for decision before Justice Navindra Singh on September 12.  

The first declaration that the applicants sought is that the Act is likely to contravene the applicants’ rights to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment as guaranteed by the Articles 40 and 141 of the Constitution.

The respondents contended that when an applicant applies to the court to determine if certain legislation is repugnant or offensive to the Constitution, it is imperative that the applicant states with clarity and specificity how the legislation offends the Constitution and affects the applicant.

The Court held that the applicants have not set out one ground or single particular in their Affidavit in Support of the FDA supportive of their assertion that the Act or any section of the statute offends against Articles 40 or 141 of the Constitution.

The applicants did not provide a single particular of how the Act or any section thereof has resulted or imposed inhuman or degrading punishment on any of them.

The second Declaration that the Applicants sought was that the Act is likely to contravene their right not to be deprived of property as guaranteed by Articles 40 and 142 of the Constitution. In this regard the Applicants failed to demonstrate that they have in fact been deprived of property.

The third declaration that the applicants sought was that the Act was likely to contravene the Applicants’ rights of freedom of assembly and association as guaranteed by Articles 40 and 147 of the Constitution.

The Court held that there has been no evidence presented showing that any of the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly has, in any way or form, been breached, hindered or restricted. The applicants had not stated or produced evidence that they have in any way been prevented from associating freely with any other legal personality.

Further, the applicants also sought a declaration  that since there were matters engaging the court’s attention at the time that the Act came into force then the Executive and Legislature acted contrary to the principles of Separation of Powers since that amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion into the judicial process.

The court held that if that position was to be adopted then it would mean that the Legislature and Executive are barred from performing their constitutional functions upon the institution of an action in the court.

The Respondents’ main contention was that there is a presumption of constitutionality of legislation and it is for those who contend otherwise to establish to the satisfaction of the court that it is unconstitutional and it is for the party who attacks the validity of the legislation to show that it is arbitrary and unsupportable which the Applicants failed to do.

Based on the forgoing, his Honour held that the Guyana Cricket Administration Act is constitutional and dismissed the Fixed Date Application with Costs to the Respondents.

Consequently, the interim order which was granted on June 4, 2018 that prohibited the Respondents from doing, taking, permitting, allowing or executing any acts or steps to be done, taken, permitted, allowed or executed by the Second Named Respondent and or the Executive of the State of Guyana until the hearing and determination of the Application herein challenging the constitutionality of the Act has been discharged.