Dear Editor,
I WOULD like to share my views about an article carried in the Guyana Chronicle under the caption, “Hearing of Ali matter adjourned”, dated 7th February 2019, bearing in mind I am no legal expert, nor am I a legal-minded person (lawyer) that interprets the laws of our land, nor am I in the legal profession, but just a simple, ordinary citizen of Guyana.

The article stated that “the magisterial hearing in the matter against former Housing Minister, Irfaan Ali, has been adjourned until April 29, 2019, pending the hearing of a motion in the High Court to stop the matter from proceeding further.”
According to the article, “the matter was called on Wednesday, February 06, 2019, and Ali’s attorney Devindra Kissoon requested that the matter be adjourned, pending the outcome of the hearing at the High Court.”

As we all know, Ali, who is the presidential candidate for the PPP is before the court facing 19 charges, whereby he was accused of defrauding the state of some $174M in the Pradoville 2 land sales which was sold way below the valuation price per plot.
I assume that Ali and many or may I say all in the PPP are happy that the chief magistrate POSTPONED IRFAAN ALI’s FRAUD CASE pending the hearing and outcome of that motion in the High Court.

I also assume that many of the TOP BRASS PPP members, including its leader, are going to tell the nation that Irfaan Ali followed the legal procedures and options available to him  by taking the motion to the High Court for the matter to be thrown out and not be dealt with in any further proceedings by the Magistrates Court. Ali is within his rights to move to the High Court, given that it may be a legal option available to have the proceedings dropped against him because he feels that the matters are bad in nature and should not be brought against him.  He has the right to explore the legal options available to him at all costs in defending himself from being found guilty and being jailed.

But the final decision, whether the case should proceed or not in the Magistrates Court, now lies in the hands of the High Court of Guyana.  The High Court will make its ruling and it will have to be complied with, or maybe either party involved will seek if there are more legal options available in ensuring the matter goes their way.
I do not think that anyone should be stopped or blocked from exploring the legal options available to them when seeking justice in a matter that is before the courts; or that is being ruled upon and one party does not agree with the decision given, or should I say handed down.

We should all allow those legal options to take their course when they are being used by someone. This now brings me to the challenges to the no-confidence motion in the High Court. The PPP, including Irfaan Ali and Jagdeo, was crying and saying that it is not legal to go to court because the National Assembly has already passed the motion and the Speaker has ruled on it.

Persons feel that passage of the no-confidence motion is illegal and they LEGALLY challenged it in the High Court of Guyana the passage of the no confidence motion, the “YES VOTE” by Charrandass Persaud is illegal and the Speaker’s ruling that the motion was carried.

Those challenges, to my understanding, are based on several grounds that were provided to the chief justice as the basis of the challenge to the matter before her.
The chief justice made her rulings on the said matters and ruled that the no confidence motion was carried legally, the “YES” vote is legal (by the way she also said that Charrandass is sitting illegally in the National Assembly\Parliament) and that the decision of the Speaker in the national assembly was correct.

Those persons who challenged the legality of the no-confidence motion through their attorneys,have indicated to the court after the ruling was handed down that they will be taking the matter further by appealing the court’s decisions.
This is because they felt that the decision of the CJ is bad and they do don’t agree with her rulings, based on the grounds provided to the court in this legal challenges through their attorneys. We saw that the appeal of the ruling by the chief justice on those matters is being filed in the Court of Appeal.  To my understanding, the Court of Appeal will now have to decide whether the matter is fit to be appealed, based on the grounds provided by the persons involved; in the matters, or if the chief justice’s ruling that was handed down remains as same.

I also believe that if either party in this matter disagrees with the rulings of the Appeal Court, then they will surely see and used the other legal options available to them in ensuring that the matter goes their way.
Brothers and sisters, my opinion is that the same way Irfaan Ali is using the legal options to have the matter on his side, is the same way the parties challenging the legality of the no confidence motion are using the very legal options available to them to have the matter on their side, meaning the vote is not valid and the motion is not carried and/or the no-confidence vote is not Legal.

So, when Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP open their mouths to cuss out the government and the citizens of this country for using the legal options available, they should do the same to Irfaan Ali and Anil Nandlall ; by the way, who also explore the legal options available in his matter that is before the courts for the law books. So, the PPP needs to stop crying foul and lying to the nation and world at large to say that the government has no rights or legal options available or; lefted available in exploring to challenge the speaker and CJ rulings in the No Confidence matter.

I do believe that the government and the private citizen have all rights to move further in ensuring that all legal options are explored in this matter and that this matter is settled once and for all, so that in the future the decision of the Speaker on a matter of this nature would be easily addressed and have to be accepted by all parties involved.

A matter of this nature is of importance to our nation in moving forward positively into the future, if another no-confidence motion is to be brought against any government elected.  It will set the right procedures to be used and bring better understanding amongst all elected members of the National Assembly and make the speaker’s work easier when he has to rule. The challenges to legal matters where decisions are being handed down and do not find favour with one party is not new in Guyana, nor do I don’t think its new in any part of this world.

Therefore, it is like a cricket match where the third umpire gives the final decision when a player or team does not find favour with the on-ground\ruling umpire’s decisions and so they refer their matter to the third umpire, who will look carefully and then make a ruling, which will have to be abided with by both teams, no matter what.

So, the third umpire will be the last option in this no-confidence motion and whatever the third umpire says\rules will have to be respected and carried by ALL, no matter what. So, the PPP and Mr Jagdeo need to stop beating around the bushes and come clear, because I am sure the lawyers within the PPP had several appeals on various matters that did not go their way.  And they should better advise the leader of their party.

Mr. Jagdeo and the PPP legal minds needs to understand that this matter that is before courts and the country at large is very important to be dealt with, for our nation needs to move forward, because the most serious of rulings that will only be respected by all is after the highest court gives it rulings and that will have to be respected by all.

Question for Mr.Jagdeo and all the legal minds within the PPP ;
If the government is to call elections as stipulated in the constitution ( bearing in mind the legal challenges at hand) and a few weeks after that elections the court rules that the no-confidence vote is ILLEGAL, what happens then, especially. if the elected government is being removed at those elections?.

I look forward and the nation I think will be waiting on that answer, because we are dealing not with an individual, but we are dealing with an entire nation (country). So, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Regards
Abel Seetaram